United Way Pacific Northwest Alice Report 2016

ALICE
ASSET LIMITED, INCOME CONSTRAINED, EMPLOYED
Fall 2015
STUDY OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

UnitedWayALICE.org/PNW
THE UNITED WAYS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

IDAHO
Twin County United Way
United Way of South Central Idaho, Inc.
United Way of Idaho Falls & Bonneville County, Inc.
United Way of Southeastern Idaho
United Way of Kootenai County
United Way of Treasure Valley, Inc.
United Way of Moscow/Latah County
OREGON
Crook County United Fund
United Way of Jackson County
Greater Douglas United Way
United Way of Lane County
Jefferson County United Way
United Way of Linn County
Tillamook County United Way
United Way of Southwestern Oregon
Tri-County United Fund
United Way of the Columbia Gorge
United Way of Benton & Lincoln Counties
United Way of the Columbia-Willamette
United Way of Clatsop County
United Way of the Klamath Basin
United Way of Columbia County
United Way of the Mid-Willamette Valley
United Way of Deschutes County
United Way of Umatilla And Morrow Counties
United Way of Eastern Oregon
WASHINGTON
United Good Neighbors Jefferson Co.
United Way of Lewis County
United Way of Benton & Franklin Counties
United Way of Mason County
United Way of Central Washington
United Way of Pierce County
United Way of Chelan & Douglas Co.
United Way of Pullman
United Way of Clallam County
United Way of San Juan County
United Way of Cowlitz County
United Way of Skagit Co.
United Way of Grant Co.
United Way of Snohomish County
United Way of Grays Harbor
United Way of Spokane County
United Way of Island Co.
United Way of Thurston County
United Way of King County
United Way of Walla Walla County
United Way of Kitsap County
United Way of Whatcom County
NATIONAL ALICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

The following companies are major funders and supporters of the United Way ALICE Project.
AT&T | Atlantic Health System | Deloitte | Entergy | Johnson & Johnson

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation | UPS
NOTE: In addition to the corporate sponsorships, this Report was made possible by the United Ways noted above.
LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY

Dear Pacific Northwesterners,
A traveler through the Pacific Northwest cant help but be struck by three things: the
vibrancy of our cities; the beauty of our coastlines, forests, deserts and mountains; and
the enormous differences between the two as places to live, work, and raise families.
The Great Recession and the last five years of recovery have affected urban and rural
Washington, Oregon and Idaho in radically different ways. Yet amid all this variety, one
population is expanding across all three states: ALICE. What many people dont know is just how many of us
are or know ALICE. This United Way ALICE Report for the Pacific Northwest shows that one-third of our
population struggles every month to afford basic necessities.
This is a huge number, and it continues to grow. ALICE individuals and families live in every county in the Pacific
Northwest and almost all our cities and towns. ALICE is the cashiers, auto mechanics, home health aides and
day care teachers we see every day workers who keep all of our local economies, and our families lives,
running, but who arent always sure that they can put food on their own tables. And ALICEs struggles affect not
just ALICE individuals and households, but our communities as a whole.
Our region is already a national leader on issues that affect ALICE families, including early learning and health
care. What the ALICE Report for the Pacific Northwest now offers us is data that we can use to both track where
weve been and set goals for the future.
The key is prevention finding ways to keep people from falling off the edge, either into ALICE or from ALICE
into poverty. The Report allows us to look upstream and think about populations that are teetering on that edge.
Because the fact is that no matter how hard ALICE families work, they cant catch up: they live one emergency
one medical bill, one car accident, one job loss away from crisis.
This isnt always an easy place to live. Maintaining homes and property on the West Coast is often tougher
and more expensive than in dry, sunny climates. We also deal with the constant threat of natural disasters like
annual wildfires, flooding, earthquakes and volcanoes.
But for me, a hallmark of the Pacific Northwest is our collaborative spirit. People here come together around
hardship, and they make things happen. In fact, as we figure things out for each other, we often lead the way for
the rest of the country. We take pride in the fact that cutting-edge, national trends in policy and human services
often originate right here.
Several times in my life I have struggled as ALICE: when I served in the Army, living on a low monthly salary;
during a year in Americorps/VISTA on a small stipend, with Food Stamps making up some of the difference; in
years working at jobs with low wages and no benefits, including a decade without access to dental care. Also, I
have multiple family members who are ALICE today.
Now, I am driven by the desire to make sure my own daughter has the ability to succeed. I want to build a level
playing field for her and all of her friends, to be sure that her generation has the opportunity to achieve their
full potential. Our goal, and the goal of the United Way ALICE Project, is to bring the American Dream back to
people that dream that is so prevalent in our thoughts, hopes and dreams, but increasingly difficult to achieve.
By putting a clearer lens on the ALICE population, by learning how to give people more and better opportunities
to build stability for themselves and their families, we take another step toward restoring that dream.
I hope that youll join me in taking inspiration from this Report, and I hope that we can move ahead together to
improve life for every resident of the Pacific Northwest.
Sincerely,
Jim Cooper, President and CEO, United Ways of the Pacific Northwest
THE UNITED WAY ALICE PROJECT

The United Way ALICE Project provides a framework, language, and tools to measure and understand the
struggles of the growing number of households in our communities who do not earn enough to afford basic
necessities, a population called ALICE. This national research initiative partners with state United Way
organizations, such as United Ways of the Pacific Northwest, to deliver research-based data that can stimulate
meaningful discussion, attract new partners, and ultimately inform strategies that affect positive change.
Based on the overwhelming success of this research in identifying and articulating the needs of this vulnerable
population, the United Way ALICE Project has grown from a pilot in Morris County, New Jersey in 2009, to the
entire state of New Jersey in 2012, and now to the national level with United Way ALICE Reports in ten states
and more on the way.
As much as one-third of the population of the United States lives in an ALICE household. United Ways in the
Pacific Northwest are proud to join the some 250 United Ways from the participating states to better understand
the struggles of ALICE. The result is that ALICE is rapidly becoming part of the common vernacular, appearing
in grant applications, in the media, and in public forums discussing financial hardship in communities across the
country.
Together, United Ways, government agencies, nonprofits, and corporations have the opportunity to evaluate
the current solutions and discover innovative approaches to give ALICE a voice, and to create changes that
improve life for ALICE and the wider community.
To access reports from all ten states, visit UnitedWayALICE.org
States with United Way ALICE Reports
Oregon
North Dakota
Montana
Washington
Minnesota
Wisconsin
South Dakota
Idaho
Wyoming
Michigan
Iowa
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Vermont
Maine
Illinois Indiana
Utah
Colorado
California
Kansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Arizona
Arkansas
Ohio
Tennessee
Georgia
Alabama
Louisiana
Pennsylvania
West
Virginia
Virginia
Kentucky
New Mexico
Texas
New York
North
Carolina
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
District of
Columbia
South
Carolina
Florida
Mississippi
Alaska
Hawaii
New Jersey (2012)

First Cohort (2014)
Second Cohort (2015)
THE ALICE RESEARCH TEAM

The United Way ALICE Project provides high quality, research-based information to foster a better understanding
of who is struggling in our communities. To produce the United Way ALICE Report for the Pacific Northwest, a
team of researchers collaborated with a Research Advisory Committee, composed of 17 representatives from
across the region, who advised and contributed to our United Way ALICE Report. This collaborative model,
practiced in each state, ensures each United Way ALICE Report presents unbiased data that is replicable, easily
updated on a regular basis, and sensitive to local context. Working closely with United Ways, the United Way
ALICE Project seeks to equip communities with information to create innovative solutions.
Lead Researcher and National Director

Stephanie Hoopes, Ph.D. is the lead researcher and national director of the United Way ALICE Project.
Dr. Hoopes work focuses on the political economy of the United States and specifically on the circumstances
of low-income households. Her research has garnered both state and national media attention. She began the
United Way ALICE Project as a pilot study of the low-income community in affluent Morris County, New Jersey in
2009, and has overseen its expansion into a national initiative to more accurately measure financial hardship in
states across the country. In 2015, Dr. Hoopes joined the staff at United Way of Northern New Jersey in order to
grow this work in new and innovative ways as more and more states become involved.
Dr. Hoopes was an assistant professor at the School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA), Rutgers
University-Newark, from 2011 to 2015, and director of Rutgers-Newarks New Jersey DataBank, which makes data
available to citizens and policymakers on current issues in 20 policy areas, from 2011 to 2012. SPAA continues to
support the United Way ALICE Project with access to research resources.
Dr. Hoopes has a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics, a masters degree from the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a bachelors degree from Wellesley College.
Research Support Team

Andrew Abrahamson
Laurie Hills, M.B.A.
Hanjin Mao, M.P.A.
Jami Thall
ALICE Research Advisory Committee for the Pacific Northwest

Fred Abousleman, MPA
Oregon Cascades West Council
of Governments
Joe Avalos, M.A., Thurston County
Public Health and Social Services
Mark Edwards, Ph.D.
Oregon State University, School of
Public Policy
David Hartman, M.A.

The Prosperity Agenda
Ali Modarres, Ph.D.

University of Washington, Tacoma
Patrick Jones, Ph.D.

Institute for Public Policy &
Economic Analysis, Eastern
Washington University
Jennie Romich, Ph.D.

West Coast Poverty Center,
University of Washington
Nicola Marsden-Haug
Kitsap County Public Health
Katie Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.

Seattle University Economics Professor
Kim Matson
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Elena Fracchia, MPA

United Way of Lane County
(Eugene/ Springfield, OR)
Jennifer McKinney, Ph.D.

Sociology Dept., Seattle
Pacific University
Larry Geri, MPA

The Evergreen State College
Alivia Metts, B.S.

Economist/ Consultant
Will Summers, B.S.

Oregon Employment Department
Kathryn Tacke, M.A.
Idaho Department of Labor
Aimee White, Ph.D.
Evaluator/ Consultant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1
INTRODUCTION7
I. WHO IS STRUGGLING IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST?12
Measure 1 The ALICE Threshold
II. HOW COSTLY IS IT TO LIVE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST?45

Measure 2 The Household Budget: Survival vs. Stability
III. WHERE DOES ALICE WORK? HOW MUCH DOES ALICE EARN AND SAVE?55
IV. HOW MUCH INCOME AND ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED TO REACH THE ALICE THRESHOLD70
Measure 3 The ALICE Income Assessment
V. WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR ALICE HOUSEHOLDS IN THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST?81
Measure 4 The Economic Viability Dashboard
VI. THE CONSEQUENCES OF INSUFFICIENT HOUSEHOLD INCOME95

CONCLUSION130
APPENDIX A INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST148
APPENDIX B THE ALICE THRESHOLD: METHODOLOGY150
APPENDIX C THE HOUSEHOLD SURVIVAL BUDGET: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES156
APPENDIX D THE HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGET: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES160
APPENDIX E THE ALICE INCOME ASSESSMENT: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES163
APPENDIX F THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY DASHBOARD: METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES166
APPENDIX G HOUSING DATA BY COUNTY172
APPENDIX H KEY FACTS AND ALICE STATISTICS176
APPENDIX I HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME214
APPENDIX J ALICE COUNTY PAGES217
BIBLIOGRAPHY340
ALICE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Annual Household Survival Budget, Pacific Northwest, 2013 9
Figure 2. Household Income, Pacific Northwest, 2013 14
Figure 3. Households by Income, Pacific Northwest, 2007 to 2013 16
Figure 4. Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by County, Pacific Northwest, 2013 18
Figure 5. Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by County Subdivision, Pacific Northwest, 2013 19
Figure 6. Distribution of Households below the ALICE Threshold across County Subdivisions, Pacific Northwest, 201320
Figure 7. Households below the ALICE Threshold, Largest Cities, Pacific Northwest, 2013 20
Figure 8. Percent Households below the ALICE Threshold, Seattle by PUMA, 2013 22
Figure 9. Percent Households below the ALICE Threshold, Portland, Oregon by PUMA, 2013 24
Figure 10. Household Income by Age, Pacific Northwest, 2013 26
Figure 11. Age by Household Income, Pacific Northwest, 2013 27
Figure 12. Households by Race/Ethnicity and Income, Pacific Northwest, 2013 29
Figure 13. Additional Households by Race and Ethnicity, Pacific Northwest, 2013 31
Figure 14. Households by Poverty Rate and Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, Pacific Northwest, 201332
Figure 15. Household Types by Income, Pacific Northwest, 2013 33
Figure 16. Households with Children by Income, Pacific Northwest, 2013 35
Figure 17. Education Attainment and Median Annual Earnings, Pacific Northwest, 2013 38
Figure 18. Median Annual Earnings by Education and Gender, Pacific Northwest, 2013 39
Figure 19. Population by Place of Birth, Pacific Northwest, 2013 41
Figure 20. Veterans by Age, Pacific Northwest, 2013 43
Figure 21. Household Survival Budget, Pacific Northwest State Averages, 2013 47
Figure 22. Average Household Stability Budget vs. Household Survival Budget, Pacific Northwest, 2013 53
Figure 23. Total Gross Domestic Product, Pacific Northwest, 2007-2013 56
Figure 24. Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, Pacific Northwest, 2013 57
Figure 25. Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, Pacific Northwest, 2007 to 2013 59
Figure 26. Occupations by Employment and Wage, Pacific Northwest, 2013 60
Figure 27. Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Gender, Pacific Northwest, 2013 63
Figure 28. Percent Change in Household Sources of Income, Pacific Northwest, 2007 to 2013 64
Figure 29. Households by Wealth, Pacific Northwest, 2012 66
Figure 30. Use of Alternative Financial Products by Banking Status, Washington, 2011 68
Figure 31. Aggregate Resources to Reach the ALICE Threshold, Idaho, 2013 72
Figure 32. Sources of Public and Private Assistance to Households below the ALICE Threshold, Pacific Northwest, 201374
Figure 33. Aggregate Resources to Reach the ALICE Threshold, Oregon, 2013 75
Figure 34. Aggregate Resources to Reach the ALICE Threshold, Washington, 2013 77
Figure 35. Public Assistance per Household below the ALICE Threshold, Pacific Northwest, 2013 78
Figure 36. Economic Viability Dashboard, Idaho, 2013 84
Figure 37. Economic Viability Dashboard, Oregon, 2013 86
Figure 38. Economic Viability Dashboard, Washington, 2013 88
Figure 39. Economic Viability Dashboard, Pacific Northwest, 2007 to 2013 94
Figure 40. Consequences of Households Living Below the ALICE Threshold in the Pacific Northwest 95
Figure 41. NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index for Pacific Northwest Metro Areas, 2015 97
Figure 42. Renters Below the ALICE Threshold vs. Rental Stock, Idaho, 2013 99
Figure 43. Renters Below the ALICE Threshold vs. Rental Stock, Oregon, 2013 100
Figure 44. Renters Below the ALICE Threshold vs. Rental Stock, Washington, 2013 101
Figure 45. Percent of Workers Commuting Outside Home County, the Pacific Northwest, 2013 111
Figure 46. Projected Occupational Demand by Wage, Education, and Work Experience, the Pacific Northwest, 20122022 123
Figure 47. Percent Holding Assets for Households, by Type of Asset Owned and Household Income, U.S., 2011 128
Figure 48. Population Growth, Pacific Northwest, 2000 to 2030 131
Figure 49. Foreign-Born Residents Period of Entry into U.S., Pacific Northwest, 1990 to 2020 134
Figure 50. Median Earnings by Race and Ethnicity, Pacific Northwest, 2013 138
Figure 51. Percent of Households Owning Vehicles, Financial Assets, and their Own Home, by Race and Ethnicity, U.S., 2011139
Figure 52. Percent Households Holding Financial Assets, by Race and Ethnicity, U.S., 2011 140
Figure 53. Oregon Voters by Annual Income, 2014 U.S. Senate Election 144
Figure 54. Washington Voters by Annual Income, 2014 U.S. Senate Election..................................................... 145
Figure 55. Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term Strategies to Assist ALICE Families 146
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the Pacific Northwest, 1.6 million households fully 35 percent struggled to afford basic
household necessities in 2013.
Who is ALICE?
With the cost of living higher than what most wages pay, ALICE families an acronym for Asset Limited,
Income Constrained, Employed work hard and earn above the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), but not
enough to afford a basic household budget of housing, child care, food, transportation, and health care.
ALICE households include women and men, young and old, urban, suburban, and rural, and of all races and
ethnicities, and they live in every county in the Pacific Northwest.
Who is struggling?
While the FPL reports that only 14 percent of Pacific Northwest households face financial hardship, the ALICE
Threshold provides a clearer and more updated estimate. In 2013:
In Idaho, 15 percent (87,233 households) lived in poverty, and 22 percent (130,397 households)
were ALICE
In Oregon, 15 percent (230,328 households) lived in poverty, and 23 percent (346,700 households)
were ALICE
In Washington, 13 percent (343,878 households) lived in poverty and 19 percent (510,342
households) were ALICE
Why are there so many ALICE households in the Pacific Northwest?

Low wage jobs dominate the local economy: More than half of all jobs in the Pacific Northwest pay less than
$20 per hour, with most paying between $10 and $15 per hour ($15 per hour full time = $30,000/year). These
jobs especially service jobs that pay below $20 per hour and require only a high school education or less
will grow far faster than higher-wage jobs over the next decade.
Jobs are not located near housing that is affordable: Through the Great Recession, both housing
affordability and job opportunities dropped steeply. Housing continued to decline slightly from 2010 to 2013 and
job opportunities on average stayed flat, so it remains difficult for ALICE households in the Pacific Northwest to
find both housing affordability and job opportunities in the same county.
Public and private assistance helps, but doesnt achieve financial stability: Assistance provides essential
support for households below the ALICE Threshold but cannot lift all households to economic stability.
Government, nonprofit, and health care organizations spend $21 billion on services for ALICE and poverty-level
households in the region to supplement their income, but even that total is still 25 percent short of lifting all
households in the Pacific Northwest above the ALICE Threshold.
UNITED WAY ALICE REPORT PACIFIC NORTHWEST
The basic cost of living is high: The cost of basic household expenses in the Pacific Northwest is more
than what most of the regions jobs can support. The average annual Household Survival Budget for a Pacific
Northwest family of four (two adults with one infant and one preschooler) ranges from $46,176 in Idaho to
$52,152 in Washington double the U.S. family poverty rate of $23,550.
What are the consequences, and what would improve the economic
situation for ALICE households?
Consequences: When ALICE households cannot make ends meet, they are forced to make difficult choices
such as forgoing health care, accredited child care, healthy food, or car insurance. These savings threaten their
health, safety, and future and they reduce productivity and raise insurance premiums and taxes for everyone.
The costs are high for both ALICE families and the wider community.
Effective change: While short-term strategies can make conditions less severe, only structural economic changes
will significantly improve the prospects for ALICE and enable hardworking households to support themselves.
Strengthening the Pacific Northwest economy and meeting ALICEs challenges are linked: improvement for
one would directly benefit the other. The ALICE tools can help policy makers, community leaders, and business
leaders to better understand the magnitude and variety of households facing financial hardship, and to create
more effective change.
GLOSSARY
ALICE is an acronym that stands for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, comprising
households with income above the Federal Poverty Level but below the basic cost of living.
The Household Survival Budget calculates the actual costs of basic necessities (housing, child care,
food, health care, and transportation) in the Pacific Northwest, adjusted for different counties and
household types.
The ALICE Threshold is the average level of income that a household needs to afford the basics defined
by the Household Survival Budget for each county in the Pacific Northwest. (Please note that unless
otherwise noted in this Report, households earning less than the ALICE Threshold include both ALICE
and poverty-level households.)
The Household Stability Budget is greater than the basic Household Survival Budget and reflects
the cost for household necessities at a modest but sustainable level. It adds a savings category, and is
adjusted for different counties and household types.
The ALICE Income Assessment is the calculation of all sources of income, resources, and assistance
for ALICE and poverty-level households. Even with assistance, the Assessment reveals a significant
shortfall, or Unfilled Gap, between what these households bring in and what is needed for them to reach
the ALICE Threshold.
The Economic Viability Dashboard is comprised of three Indices that evaluate the economic conditions
that matter most to ALICE households Housing Affordability, Job Opportunities, and Community
Resources. A Dashboard is provided for each county in the region.
Consequences of Households Living Below the ALICE Threshold

in the Pacific Northwest
Impact on ALICE
Impact on Community
HOUSING
Live in substandard housing
Inconvenience; health and safety risks;

increased maintenance costs
Worker stressed, late, and/or absent

from job less productive
Move farther away from job
Longer commute; costs increase; less time for

other activities
More traffic on road; workers late to job
Homeless
Disruption to job, family, school, etc.
Costs for homeless shelters, foster care

system, health care
Substandard child care
Safety and learning risks; health risks; limited

future employment opportunity
Future burden on education and social

services; less productive worker
No child care
One parent cannot work; forgoing immediate

income and future promotions
Further burden on education system and

other social services
Substandard public
education
Learning risks; limited earning potential/ mobility; Stressed parents; future burden on
limited career opportunity
social services
CHILD CARE AND EDUCATION
FOOD
Less healthy
Poor health; obesity
Less productive worker/student; future

burden on health care system
Not enough
Poor daily functioning
Even less productive; future burden on

social services and health care system
Old car
Unreliable transportation; risk of accidents;

increased maintenance costs

from job less productive
No insurance/registration
Risk of fine; accident liability; risk of license

being revoked
Higher insurance premiums; unsafe

vehicles on the road
Long commute
Less time for other activities; more costly
More traffic on road; workers late to job;

greater burden on road maintenance
services
No car
Limited employment opportunities and access to

health care/child care
Reduced economic productivity;

higher taxes for specialized public
transportation; greater burden on
emergency vehicles
Underinsured
Forgo preventative health care; more out-ofpocket expense
Workers report to job sick; spread

illness; less productive; absenteeism
No insurance
Forgo preventative health care; use Emergency

Department for non-emergency care
Higher insurance premiums for all to fill

the gap; more expensive health costs
Low wages
Longer work hours; pressure on other family

members to work (drop out of school); no
savings

from job less productive; higher taxes
to fill the gap
No wages
Cost of looking for work and finding social

services
Less productive society; higher taxes to

fill the gap
Minimal Savings
Mental stress; crises; risk taking; use costly

alternative financial systems to bridge gaps
More workers facing crisis; unstable

workforce; community disruption
No savings
Crises spiral quickly, leading to homelessness,

hunger, illness
Costs for homeless shelters, foster care

system, emergency health care
TRANSPORTATION
INCOME
SAVINGS
Suggested reference: United Way ALICE Report Pacific Northwest, 2015
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
AT-A-GLANCE: IDAHO
Idaho Counties, 2013

County
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Ada
155,434
32%
Adams
1,707
40%
Bannock
30,265
38%
Bear Lake
2,442
33%
Benewah
3,888
40%
Bingham
15,005
36%
Blaine
9,205
35%
Boise
2,994
39%
Bonner
17,160
38%
Bonneville
36,806
34%
Boundary
4,144
43%
Butte
1,022
42%
Camas
464
42%
Canyon
65,923
42%
Caribou
2,644
36%
Cassia
7,542
42%
Clark
2013 Point-in-Time Data
Population: 1,612,136 | Number of Counties: 44 | Number of Households: 588,063

Median Household Income (state average): $46,783
Unemployment Rate (state average): 7.2%
Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality) (state average): 0.44
How many households are struggling?

ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited, Income
Constrained, Employed, are households that earn
Above
more than the U.S. poverty level, but less than
ALICE
the basic cost of living for the state (the ALICE
Threshold
63%
Threshold). Combined, the number of poverty and
ALICE households (37 percent) equals the total
Idaho population struggling to afford basic needs.
Idaho
Poverty
15%
ALICE
22%
Income Assessment for Idaho

The total annual income of poverty-level and ALICE households in Idaho is $3.2 billion,
which includes wages and Social Security. This is only 40.5 percent of the amount
needed just to reach the ALICE Threshold of $8 billion statewide. Government and nonprofit assistance makes up an additional 31.3 percent, but that still leaves an Unfilled
Gap of 28.2 percent, or $2.3 billion.
304
53%
Clearwater
3,545
40%
Custer
1,870
39%
Elmore
9,737
36%
Franklin
4,150
43%
Fremont
4,549
39%
Gem
6,323
39%
Gooding
5,552
45%
Idaho
6,534
40%
Jefferson
8,038
35%
Jerome
7,808
43%
Kootenai
55,836
33%
Latah
14,960
43%
Lemhi
3,832
46%
Lewis
1,660
47%
Lincoln
1,617
48%
Madison
10,569
59%
Minidoka
7,033
41%
Nez Perce
15,910
33%
Oneida
1,579
47%
Owyhee
3,911
62%
Payette
7,968
40%
Housing
Power
2,568
48%
Child Care
Shoshone
5,714
39%
Teton
3,583
45%
Twin Falls
28,811
38%
Valley
3,519
Washington
3,938
Idaho ALICE Threshold Earned Income and Assistance = Unfilled Gap

$8 billion
$5.7 billion
= $2.3 billion
What does it cost to afford the basic necessities?

This bare-minimum Household Survival Budget does not allow for any savings, leaving
a household vulnerable to unexpected expenses. Affording only a very modest living
in each community, this budget is still significantly more than the U.S. poverty level of
$11,490 for a single adult and $23,550 for a family of four.
Monthly Costs Idaho Average 2013

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
2007 2013
PERCENT CHANGE
$470
$656
11%
$902
5%
Food
$191
$579
17%
Transportation
$350
$700
2%
34%
Health Care
$119
$474
30%
46%
Taxes
$133
$187
-1%
Miscellaneous
$126
$350
10%
Monthly Total
$1,388
$3,848
10%
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,660
$46,176
10%
$8.33
$23.09
10%
Hourly Wage
Chart in At-A-Glance - Idaho
AT-A-GLANCE: OREGON
County
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Baker
7,120
42%
Population: 3,930,065 | Number of Counties: 36 | Number of Households: 1,523,194
Benton
33,609
41%
Clackamas
150,382
30%
Clatsop
15,549
42%
Columbia
18,781
39%
Coos
25,814
47%
Crook
8,974
45%
Curry
10,413
41%
Deschutes
65,065
41%
Douglas
43,389
43%
Gilliam
883
29%
3,319
44%
Harney
3,113
40%
Hood River
8,174
40%
Jackson
82,983
45%
Jefferson
7,723
39%
Josephine
34,517
48%
Klamath
25,746
48%
Lake
3,566
46%
Lane
144,166
43%
Lincoln
20,458
42%
Linn
43,911
44%
Malheur
10,322
56%
Marion
114,077
43%
Morrow
3,741
40%
Multnomah
309,552
31%
Polk
28,097
39%
827
35%
Tillamook
9,576
47%
Umatilla
26,943
37%
Union
10,179
41%
Wallowa
2,996
39%
Grant
Sherman
Wasco
9,485
49%
203,665
33%
Wheeler
625
33%
Yamhill
35,454
40%
Washington

Oregon population struggling to afford basic needs.
Oregon
Above
ALICE
Threshold
62%
Poverty
15%
ALICE
23%
Income Assessment for Oregon

The total annual income of poverty-level and ALICE households in Oregon is $9.6 billion,
which includes wages and Social Security. This is only 43.1 percent of the amount
needed just to reach the ALICE Threshold of $22.2 billion statewide. Government and
nonprofit assistance makes up an additional 30.4 percent, but that still leaves an Unfilled
Oregon ALICE Threshold Earned Income and Assistance = Unfilled Gap
$22.2 billion
$16.3 billion
= $5.9 billion

Monthly Costs Oregon Average 2013

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
2007 2013
PERCENT CHANGE
$492
$732
13%
$934
4%
Food
$191
$579
17%
Transportation
$342
$683
1%
Health Care
$119
$474
25%
Taxes
$238
$445
-5%
Miscellaneous
$138
$385
8%
Monthly Total
$1,520
$4,233
8%
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,240
$50,796
8%
$9.12
$25.40
8%
Housing
Child Care
Hourly Wage
Oregon Counties, 2013
Washington Counties, 2013
County
Total HH
Adams
5,738
47%
Asotin
9,270
37%
Benton
68,334
30%
Chelan
27,665
36%
Clallam
30,606
38%
Clark
158,778
33%
Columbia
1,651
38%
Cowlitz
38,483
34%
Douglas
14,138
34%
Ferry
2,951
49%
Franklin
24,434
42%
Garfield
970
30%
Grant
29,888
44%
Grays Harbor
26,815
42%
Island
32,990
32%
Jefferson
13,285
40%
King
819,434
25%
Kitsap
97,854
23%
Kittitas
16,409
43%
Klickitat
7,829
39%
Lewis
29,040
43%
Lincoln
4,457
34%
Mason
23,395
38%
Okanogan
16,231
41%
Pacific
9,165
42%
Pend Oreille
5,484
41%
302,287
34%
San Juan
7,753
32%
Skagit
45,234
36%
Skamania
4,452
33%
Snohomish
270,616
33%
Spokane
186,456
37%
Stevens
17,586
34%
Thurston
99,815
35%
Wahkiakum
1,715
38%
Walla Walla
21,413
45%
Whatcom
78,330
41%
Housing
Whitman
17,340
52%
Child Care
Yakima
79,742
46%
Food
Transportation
Pierce
AT-A-GLANCE: WASHINGTON
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Population: 6,971,406 | Number of Counties: 39 | Number of Households: 2,648,033


Washington population struggling to afford basic
needs.
Poverty
13%
ALICE
19%
Income Assessment for Washington

The total annual income of poverty-level and ALICE households in Washington is $14.2
billion, which includes wages and Social Security. This is only 42 percent of the amount
nonprofit assistance makes up an additional 34.7 percent, but that still leaves an Unfilled
Washington ALICE Threshold Earned Income and Assistance = Unfilled Gap
$33.8 billion
$25.9 billion
= $7.9 billion

Monthly Costs Washington Average 2013

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
2007 2013
PERCENT CHANGE
$528
$805
17%
$1,223
2%
$191
$579
17%
$334
$666
-4%
Health Care
$119
$473
27%
Taxes
$137
$205
-16%
Miscellaneous
$131
$395
8%
Monthly Total
$1,440
$4,346
7%
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,280
$52,152
7%
$8.64
$26.08
7%
Hourly Wage
Washington
Above
ALICE
Threshold
68%
INTRODUCTION
For most Americans, the Pacific Northwest Washington, Oregon, and Idaho conjures
images of extraordinary natural beauty and some of the worlds best year-round outdoor
tourism opportunities, from rivers, evergreen forests, and mountains to hundreds of miles of
coastline. The region is also home to a wide range of industries including technology, logging,
mining, and fishing, as well as the corporate/economic hub of Seattle, which houses Amazon,
Boeing, and Starbucks.
Traditional measures hide the reality that 35 percent of households in the Pacific
Northwest struggle to support themselves. Because income is distributed unequally in
the Pacific Northwest, there is both great wealth and significant economic hardship. That
inequality increased from 1979 to 2013 by 12 percent in Idaho, 17 percent in Oregon, and 18
percent in Washington. Now, the top 20 percent of the Pacific Northwests population earns
more than 48 percent of all income earned in the region, while the bottom 20 percent earns
4 percent (see Appendix A).
The Pacific Northwests poverty rate 15 percent in Idaho and Oregon and 13 percent in
Washington mirrors the U.S. average rate of 15 percent. However, across the region, the
median annual income ranges above and below the U.S. median of $52,250, from $46,783
in Idaho to $50,251 in Oregon to $58,405 in Washington. The regions overall economic
situation is more complex. In general, the Pacific Northwest was not hit as hard by the
Great Recession as other areas of the country. In particular, the regions population and
GDP continued to grow. However, participation in the labor market fell and unemployment
increased. As a result, the percent of employed residents decreased from 2007 to 2013
(from 65.7 to 60.2 percent in Idaho, from 62.3 to 57 percent in Oregon, and from 64.8 to
59.2 percent in Washington) (BLS, 2015). Economic recovery has not benefited all of the
regions workers to the same degree.
None of the economic measures traditionally used to calculate the financial status of the
Pacific Northwests households, such as the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), consider the actual
cost of living in each county in the Pacific Northwest or the wage rate of jobs in each of the
three states. For that reason, those indices do not fully capture the number of households
facing economic hardship across the regions 119 counties.
None of the
economic measures
traditionally used
to calculate the
financial status
of the Pacific
Northwests
households, such as
the Federal Poverty
Level (FPL), consider
the actual cost
of living in each
county in the Pacific
Northwest or the
wage rate of jobs
in each of the three
states.
The term ALICE describes a household that is Asset Limited, Income Constrained,
Employed. As originally defined in the United Way 2012 ALICE Report for New Jersey, ALICE
is a household with income above the FPL but below a basic survival threshold, referred to as
the ALICE Threshold. Defying many stereotypes, ALICE households are working households,
composed of women and men, young and old, urban, suburban, and rural, and of all races
and ethnicities, and they exist in every county in the Pacific Northwest.
The 2015 United Way ALICE Report for the Pacific Northwest provides better measures and
language to describe the sector of the Pacific Northwests population that struggles to afford
basic household necessities. It presents a more accurate picture of the economic reality in
the region, especially regarding the number of households that are severely economically
challenged.
Yet with all its resources, the Pacific Northwest also contains sharp disparities in wealth and
income. What is often overlooked is the high and growing number of households above
the poverty level, but unable to afford the regions cost of living.
The Report examines whether conditions have improved since the Great Recession, and
whether families have been able to work their way above the ALICE Threshold. It includes
a toolbox of ALICE measures that provide greater understanding of how and why so many
families are still struggling financially. Some of the challenges the Pacific Northwest faces are
unique, while others are trends that have been unfolding nationally for at least three decades.
Despite the Pacific Northwests reputation as an economically vibrant region, 35
percent of its households cannot afford basic necessities.
This 2015 United Way ALICE Report for the Pacific Northwest is far more than a report about
poverty; it reveals profound changes in the structure of the Pacific Northwests communities
and jobs. It documents the increase in the basic cost of living, the decrease in the availability
of jobs that can support household necessities, and the shortage of housing that the majority
of the regions jobs can afford.
This 2015 United

Way ALICE Report
for the Pacific
Northwest is far
more than a report
about poverty; it
reveals profound
changes in the
structure of the
Pacific Northwests
communities
and jobs.
The findings of the 2015 United Way ALICE Report are stark: the impact of the Great
Recession (2007 to 2010) was greater than first realized, and conditions have not improved
uniformly across the region in the three years since the technical end of the Recession.
In Idaho in 2007, 33 percent of households had income below the ALICE Threshold; that
share increased to 37 percent in 2010, and stayed at the same level through 2013.There
were more Oregon households with income below the ALICE Threshold at the start of the
Great Recession (36 percent); that share increased to 37 percent by the end of the Great
Recession in 2010, and then increased again to 38 percent by 2013. The situation was
more even in Washington. In 2007, 33 percent of households had income below the ALICE
Threshold and that share remained flat through 2010. Washington was the only state in
the region that saw improvement from 2010 to 2013, where the percent of households with
income below the ALICE Threshold fell to 32 percent.
In contrast, the FPL in the Pacific Northwest reports that in 2013, only 14 percent, or 661,439
households, were struggling. But the official U.S. poverty rate was developed in 1965, has
not been updated since 1974, and is not adjusted to reflect cost-of-living differences across
the country.
The ALICE measures quantify the magnitude of those struggling, and they provide the
new language needed to discuss this segment of our community and the economic
challenges that so many residents face. ALICE households are working households;
they hold jobs, pay taxes, and provide services that are vital to the the Pacific Northwest
economy. They work in a variety of positions such as retail salespeople, laborers and
movers, customer service representatives, and nursing assistants. The core issue is that
these jobs do not pay enough to afford the basics of housing, child care, food, health care,
and transportation. Moreover, the growth of low-skilled jobs is projected to outpace that
of medium- and high-skilled jobs into the next decade. At the same time, the cost of basic
household necessities continues to rise.
REPORT OVERVIEW
Who is struggling in the Pacific Northwest?
Section I presents the ALICE Threshold: a realistic measure for income inadequacy in the
Pacific Northwest that takes into account the current cost of basic necessities and geographic
variation. In the Pacific Northwest there are 1.6 million households 35 percent of the
regions total with income below the realistic cost of basic necessities:
This section provides a statistical picture of ALICE household demographics, including race/
ethnicity, age, geography, gender, household type, disability, language, education, and
immigrant status. Except for a few notable exceptions, ALICE households generally reflect
the demographics of the overall state population.
How costly is it to live in the Pacific Northwest?

Section II details the average minimum costs for households in the Pacific Northwest to
simply survive not to save or otherwise get ahead. It is well known that the cost of
living in the Pacific Northwest easily outpaces the regions low average wages. The annual
Household Survival Budget quantifies the costs of the five basic essentials of housing,
child care, food, health care, and transportation. Using the thriftiest official standards,
including those used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the average annual Household Survival Budget
for a the Pacific Northwest family of four (two adults with one infant and one preschooler)
ranges from $46,176 in Idaho to $50,796 in Oregon to $52,152 in Washington, and for a
single adult from $16,660 in Idaho to $18,240 in Oregon to $17,280 in Washington (Figure 1).
It is well known
that the cost of
living in the Pacific
Northwest easily
outpaces the
regions low
average wages.
Figure 1.
Annual Household Survival Budget, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Annual Household Survival Budget, Pacific Northwest, 2013
SINGLE ADULT
FAMILY OF 4
Idaho
$16,660
$46,176
Oregon
$18,240
$50,796
Washington
$17,280
$52,152
These numbers also vary by county, but all highlight the inadequacy of the 2013 U.S. poverty
designation of $23,550 for a family and $11,490 for a single adult as an economic survival
standard in the Pacific Northwest.
The Household Survival Budget is the basis for the ALICE Threshold, which redefines the
basic economic survival standard for Pacific Northwest households. Section II also details
a Household Stability Budget, which reaches beyond survival to budget for savings and
stability at a modest level. At this level, it is more than 85 percent higher than the Household
Survival Budget for a family of four in the Pacific Northwest.
Where does ALICE work? How much does ALICE earn

and save?
Section III examines where members of ALICE households work, as well as the amount and
types of assets these households have been able to accumulate. With more than half of
jobs in the Pacific Northwest paying less than $20 per hour, it is not surprising that so many
households fall below the ALICE Threshold. In addition, the housing and stock market crash
associated with the Great Recession (20072010), as well as high unemployment, took a toll
on household savings in the region. More than 23 percent of Pacific Northwest households
are asset poor, and more than 31 percent do not have sufficient liquid net worth to subsist at
the FPL for three months without income.
How much income and assistance are necessary to reach

the ALICE Threshold?
With more than

half of jobs in the
Pacific Northwest
paying less than
$20 per hour, it is
not surprising that
so many households
fall below the ALICE
Threshold.
Section IV examines how much income is needed to enable Pacific Northwest families to
afford the Household Survival Budget. This section also compares that level of income to
how much families actually earn as well as the amount of public and private assistance
they receive. The ALICE Income Assessment estimates that ALICE and poverty-level
households in the Pacific Northwest earn 42 percent of what is required to reach the ALICE
Threshold. Resources from hospitals, nonprofits, and federal, state, and local governments
contribute another 33 percent. What remains is a gap of 25 percent for families below
the ALICE Threshold to reach the basic economic survival standard that the Threshold
represents.
What are the economic conditions for ALICE households in

the Pacific Northwest?
Section V presents the Economic Viability Dashboard, a measure of the conditions that
the Pacific Northwests ALICE households actually face. The Dashboard compares housing
affordability, job opportunities, and community resources across the regions 119 counties.
Through the Great Recession, housing took the biggest hit, followed by job opportunities.
Housing continued to decline slightly from 2010 to 2013 and job opportunities on average
stayed flat. Community resources was the only area that improved. It remains difficult
for ALICE households in the Pacific Northwest to find both housing affordability and job
opportunities in the same county.
What are the consequences of insufficient household

income?
Section VI focuses on how households survive without sufficient income and assets to meet
the ALICE Threshold. It outlines the strategies they employ and the risks and consequences
that result both for themselves and for the rest of the community. The forecast for the Pacific
Northwests economy is for more low-wage jobs those that pay less than the cost of
basic necessities which, in turn, means that ALICE households will continue to struggle
financially, having to make difficult choices that have consequences for all.
10
Conclusion
The Report concludes by considering the implications of current trends. Most notably, the
Pacific Northwests population continues to grow and age. The aging population and an
increase in ethnic and racial diversity have significant implications for ALICE families. In
addition, the Pacific Northwest faces vulnerability to a range of natural disasters, and even
small events of this type cause hardship for ALICE households. With the Presidential election
on the horizon, this section also considers ALICE at the ballot box. This section concludes
with a discussion of the range of strategies that would reduce the number of Pacific
Northwest households living below the ALICE Threshold.
DATA PARAMETERS
The ALICE measures presented in this Report are calculated for each county. Because
the Pacific Northwest is economically, racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse, state
averages mask significant differences between municipalities and counties. For example, the
percent of households below the ALICE Threshold ranges from 23 percent in Kitsap County,
Washington to 62 percent in Owyhee County, Idaho.
The ALICE measures are calculated for 2007, 2010, and 2013 in order to compare the
beginning and the end of the economic downturn known as the Great Recession and any
progress made in the three years since the technical end of the Recession. The 2013 results
will also serve as an important baseline from which to measure both the continuing recovery
and the impact of the Affordable Care Act in the years ahead.
This Report uses data from a variety of sources, including the American Community Survey,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the U.S. Department of Labor (BLS),
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Child Care Aware (formerly NACCRRA), and these
agencies Pacific Northwest state counterparts. State, county, and municipal data is used to
provide different lenses on ALICE households. The data are estimates; some are geographic
averages, others are 1-, 3-, or 5-year averages depending on population size. The Report
examines issues surrounding ALICE households from different angles, trying to draw the
clearest picture with the range of data available.
Most notably, the

Pacific Northwests
population
continues to grow
and age. The aging
population and an
increase in ethnic
and racial diversity
have significant
implications for
ALICE families.
11
For the purposes of this Report, percentages are rounded to whole numbers. In some cases,
this may result in percentages totaling 99 or 101 percent instead of 100 percent.
I. WHO IS STRUGGLING IN THE

PACIFIC NORTHWEST?
Measure 1 The ALICE Threshold
AT-A-GLANCE: SECTION I
ALICE is an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. Despite
being employed, many households earning more than the Federal Poverty Level
(FPL) still do not earn enough to afford the five basic household necessities of
housing, child care, food, transportation, and heath care.
In Idaho, 22 percent of all households are ALICE while another 15 percent live
below the poverty level. In Oregon, 23 percent of all households are ALICE while
another 15 percent live below the poverty level. In Washington, 19 percent of all
households are ALICE while another 13 percent live below the poverty level.
ALICE households make up between 13 and 44 percent of the population in every
county in the Pacific Northwest.
ALICE households include all demographic groups and mirror the makeup of the
overall Pacific Northwest population.
More than one-quarter of senior households qualify as ALICE in the Pacific
Northwest (24 percent in Idaho and Washington, and 30 percent in Oregon).
Single-female-headed households account for the majority of households with
children living below the FPL in all three states, while married parents with children
account for the majority of ALICE households.
Other households, those that are not seniors or dont have children under 18,
account for 47 percent of the regions households with income below the ALICE
Threshold.
There are several demographic groups that are more likely to have income below
the ALICE Threshold: households that are headed by women or transgender
people, have lower levels of education, include someone with a disability, have
racial/ethnic minority status, include unauthorized or unskilled immigrants, or face
language barriers.
12
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the federal poverty rate increased across the Pacific
Northwest through the Great Recession and is currently 15 percent of Idahos 588,063
households, 15 percent of Oregons 1,523,194 households, and 13 percent of Washingtons
2,648,033 households. However, the continued demand for public and private welfare
services over the last five years suggests that many times that number of the regions
households struggle to support themselves.
The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) is not a realistic measure to define the level of financial
hardship in households across each county in the Pacific Northwest or in the U.S. Developed
in 1965, the FPL no longer reflects the actual current cost of basic household necessities. Its
methodology has not been updated since 1974 to accommodate changes in the cost of living
over time nor adjusted to reflect cost-of-living differences across the U.S.
Recognizing the shortcomings of the FPL, the U.S. Census Bureau has developed
an alternative metric, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which is based on
expenditures reported in the Consumer Expenditure Survey and adjusted for geographic
differences in the cost of housing. The SPM was meant to capture more of a states
struggling households, but SPM rates in the Pacific Northwest actually fall below the FPL.
The 3-year average SPM for Idaho is only 11.1 percent, for Oregon is 14.5 percent, and for
Washington is 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013; Short, 2013).
Despite its shortcomings, the FPL has provided a standard measure over time to determine
how many people in the U.S. are living in deep poverty. The needs and challenges that these
people face are severe, and they require substantial community assistance. The use of the
term poverty, however, is often vague, has moral connotations, and can be inappropriately
and inaccurately associated only with the unemployed. To further our understanding of
the economic challenges that financially constrained working households face across the
country, this report presents a measure of what it actually costs to live in each county in the
Pacific Northwest, calculates how many households have income below that level, and offers
an enhanced set of tools to describe the challenges they and their communities face, and the
implications of those challenges now and in the future.
The lack
of accurate
information about
the number of
people who are
poor distorts the
identification of
problems related to
poverty, misguides
policy solutions, and
raises questions
of equality,
transparency, and
fairness.
This is not merely an academic issue, but a practical one. The lack of accurate information
about the number of people who are poor distorts the identification of problems related
to poverty, misguides policy solutions, and raises questions of equality, transparency, and
fairness. Using the FPL may under-report the number of households facing financial hardship
in areas with a high cost of living and over-report the number in areas with a low cost of
living. For example, the Geography of Poverty project at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) finds that nearly 84 percent of persistent-poverty counties are located in the South
(USDA, May 2015), but it does not adjust for the lower cost of living in most southern states.
By the same token, there may be as many households struggling in other regions where the
cost of living is higher, but they are not counted in the official numbers.
13
There have been extensive critiques of the FPL and arguments for better poverty measures
(OBrien and Pedulla, 2010; Uchitelle, 2001). The official poverty level is so understated that
many government and nonprofit agencies use multiples of the FPL to determine eligibility for
assistance programs. For example, Idahos Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
uses 150 percent of the FPL, Oregons Employment Related Day Care program uses 185
percent, and Washingtons AIDS Drug Assistance Program uses 400 percent to determine
program eligibility (Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho, 2015; Oregon
Department of Human Services, 2015; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014). Even Medicaid
and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) use multiples of the FPL to determine
eligibility across the country (NCSL, 2014; Roberts, Povich and Mather, 2012).
INTRODUCING ALICE
Despite being employed, many individuals and families do not earn enough to afford the five
basic household necessities of housing, child care, food, transportation, and heath care in
the Pacific Northwest. Even though they are working, their income does not cover the cost of
living in the region and they often require public assistance to survive.
Until recently, this group of people was loosely referred to as the working poor, or technically,
as the lowest two income quintiles. The term ALICE Asset Limited, Income Constrained,
Employed more clearly defines this population as households with income above the
official FPL but below a newly defined basic survival income level. In the Pacific Northwest,
ALICE households are as diverse as the general population, composed of women and men,
young and old, of all races and ethnicities.
In the maps and figures throughout the Report, Idaho is shown in blue, Oregon is
gold, and Washington is red.
THE ALICE THRESHOLD
In a region where the cost of living varies, it is especially important to have a current
and realistic standard that reflects the true cost of economic survival and compares it to
household incomes across each county. The ALICE Threshold is a realistic standard
developed from the Household Survival Budget, a measure that estimates the minimal
cost of the five basic household necessities housing, child care, food, transportation, and
health care. Based on calculations from the American Community Survey and the
ALICE Threshold, 217,630 households in Idaho 37 percent are either in poverty or
qualify as ALICE, as well as 577,028 households 38 percent in Oregon, and 854,220
households 32 percent in Washington (Figure 2).
In a region
where the cost of
Figure 2.
living varies, it is
Household Income, Pacific Northwest, 2013
especially important
to have a current
Idaho
and realistic
Poverty
15%
Above
standard that
ALICE
reflects the true cost
Threshold
63%
of economic survival
ALICE
and compares it to
22%
household incomes
Chart in At-A-Glance - Oregon
across each
county.
Oregon
Above
ALICE
Threshold
62%
Poverty
15%
ALICE
23%
14
Total
Households = 588,063
Total
Households = 1.5 million
Chart in At-A-Glance - Washington
Washington
Above
ALICE
Threshold
68%
Poverty
13%
ALICE
19%
Total
Households = 2.6 million
Source: American Community Survey, 2013, and the ALICE Threshold, 2013
ALICE OVER TIME

The impact of the Great Recession of 2007-2010 on the Pacific Northwests economy
shaped household demographics, and that trend only began to change during the three
years following the technical end of the downturn from 2010 to 2013. The total number of
households in the Pacific Northwest increased by 7 percent, from 4.47 million in 2007 to
4.76 million in 2010 to 4.8 million in 2013 (American Community Survey, 2007 and 2013).
The Recession had a big impact on low-income households, though slightly differently across
the region (Figure 3). From 2007 to 2010, Idaho faced the largest increase in the region
in both the number of households in poverty, which grew by 26 percent, and the number
of ALICE households, which increased by 12 percent. At the same time, the number of
households above the ALICE Threshold decreased by 2 percent. In the three years after
the end of the Recession, 2010 to 2013, the number of households in poverty increased by
another 6 percent, the number of ALICE households increased by 1 percent, and the number
above the ALICE Threshold increased by 2 percent.
The impact of the

Great Recession of
2007-2010 on the
Pacific Northwests
economy shaped
household
demographics,
and that trend only
began to change
during the three
years following the
technical end of the
downturn from 2010
to 2013.
In Oregon from 2007 to 2010, the number of households in poverty increased by 15 percent,
the number of ALICE households increased by 2 percent, and the number above the ALICE
Threshold increased by 3 percent. In the three years after the end of the Recession, 2010 to
2013, the number of households in poverty increased by another 6 percent and the number
of ALICE households increased by 2 percent, while the number above the ALICE Threshold
decreased by 1 percent.
In Washington from 2007 to 2010, the number of households in poverty increased by 14
percent, the number of ALICE households increased by 3 percent, and the number above the
ALICE Threshold increased by 5 percent. In the three years after the end of the Recession,
2010 to 2013, Washington had the largest increase in the number of households in poverty,
which grew by another 11 percent; however, the number of ALICE households decreased by
9 percent, and the number above the ALICE Threshold increased by 3 percent.
15
Based on the Household Survival Budget and average household size, the ALICE Threshold
is calculated in each county for two sets of households: those headed by someone younger
than 65 years old, and those headed by someone 65 years and older. Because the basic
cost of living varies across the region, the ALICE Threshold for Pacific Northwest households
headed by someone under 65 years old ranges from $30,000 to $50,000 per year. For
older households, the ALICE Threshold ranges from $20,000 to $35,000 per year. The
methodology for the ALICE Threshold is presented in Appendix B; the ALICE Thresholds for
each county are listed in Appendix J, ALICE County Pages.
Figure 3.
Households by Income, Pacific Northwest, 2007 to 2013
Idaho
Households (in thousands)
400
371
362
370
350
300
250
2007
200
2010
150
100
114
83
65
129
2013
130
87
50
0
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Oregon
1,200
1,000
955
946
800
2007
600
2010
2013
400
200
0
16
926
333
188
217
Poverty
338
347
230
ALICE
Above AT
Washington
2,000
1,800
1,657
1,736
1,794
1,600
1,400
1,200
2007
1,000
2010
2013
800
544
600
400
310
272
558
510
344
200
0
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
WHERE DOES ALICE LIVE?

ALICE lives across the Pacific Northwest, in every county and every town. Contrary to some
stereotypes, ALICE families live in rural, urban, and suburban areas.
ALICE by County
The total number of households and the number of households living below the ALICE
Threshold vary greatly across Idahos 44 counties, Oregons 36 counties, and Washingtons
39 counties. For example, Clark County, Idaho is the smallest county in the region, with
304 households, and King County, Washington is the largest, with 819,434 households.
Clark County, Idaho has the smallest number of households with income below the ALICE
17
Though these statistics dont fully capture fluidity, it is important to note that households move
above and below the ALICE Threshold over time as economic and personal circumstances
change. Nationally, the U.S. Census reports that from January 2009 to December 2011, 31.6
percent of the U.S. population was in poverty for at least two months. By comparison, the
national poverty rate for 2010 was 15 percent (Edwards, 2014). Household income is fluid,
and ALICE households may be alternately in poverty or more financially secure at different
points during the year.
ALICE lives
across the Pacific
Northwest, in every
county and every
town. Contrary to
some stereotypes,
ALICE families live
in rural, urban, and
suburban areas.
Threshold, at 162; King County, Washington has the largest number, at 202,672. (For county
breakdowns over time, see Appendix I.)
Figure 4 shows that households living below the ALICE Threshold constitute a significant
percentage of households in all Pacific Northwest counties; the darker the color, the higher
the percentage. However, there is variation between counties in terms of overall magnitude
as well as share of poverty and ALICE households:
Below the ALICE Threshold (including households in poverty): Percentages
range from 23 in Kitsap County, Washington to 62 in Owyhee County, Idaho.
Poverty: Percentages range from 8 in Blaine and Caribou counties in Idaho, Hood
River County in Oregon, and Garfield County in Washington to 32 in Madison
County, Idaho.
ALICE: Percentages range from 13 in King and Kitsap counties in Washington to 44
in Clark County, Idaho.
Figure 4.
Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by County, Pacific
Northwest, 2013
Another measure of
economic conditions
in a county is the
persistence of
economic hardship
over time.
32%
62%
29%
56%
23%
52%
Seattle
Portland
Boise
Another measure of economic conditions in a county is the persistence of economic hardship

over time. According to the USDA, Madison County, Idaho is the only county in the Pacific
Northwest where 20 percent or more of the population has lived in poverty over the last 30
years (U.S. Census, 1980, 1990 and 2000; American Community Survey 5-year estimates,
2007-11).
18
ALICE Breakdown within Counties

Looking at the geographic distribution of ALICE households below the county level, ALICE
and poverty households represent more than 30 percent of households in the majority of
towns and cities reporting households with income.
Because the Pacific Northwest has large geographic areas with very sparsely-populated
towns and cities where it can be difficult to get accurate data, the distribution of ALICE and
poverty households in the regions towns and cities is shown instead on a map of county
subdivisions (Figure 5). County subdivisions include towns and cities as well as their
surrounding areas, to provide a more complete view of local variation in household income.
County subdivisions with the lowest percentage of households below the ALICE Threshold
are shaded lightest on the map in Figure 5; those with the highest percentage are shaded
darkest. Full data for cities and towns is in Appendix H, and percent of households below the
ALICE Threshold in each municipality is included in the municipal list on each County Page in
Appendix J.
Figure 5.
Percent of Households below the ALICE Threshold by County Subdivision,
Pacific Northwest, 2013
14%
66%
9%
63%
11%
63%
ALICE and poverty

households
represent more
than 30 percent of
households in the
majority of towns
and cities reporting
households with
income.
Seattle
Portland
NOTE: For areas with small populations, the American Community Survey estimates of household income are often based on 3- or
5-year averages, making these ALICE estimates less precise point-in-time estimates than the county-level estimates.
19
Boise
Eighty-one percent of the Pacific Northwests 608 county subdivisions have more than
30 percent of households living on an income below the ALICE Threshold. Only 24
county subdivisions have fewer than 20 percent of households with income below the ALICE
Threshold, and most have 30 to 39 percent of households with income below the ALICE
Threshold (Figure 6).
Number of County Subdivisions
Figure 6.
Distribution of Households below the ALICE Threshold across County
Subdivisions, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Fig 6 Dist of HHs below AT across County Subs PNW 2013
250
200
150
100
50
0
Less than 20%
20% - 29%
Idaho
30% - 39%
Oregon
40% - 49%
50% +
Washington
There are large

concentrations of
households with
income below the
ALICE Threshold
in the Pacific
Northwests
largest cities.
There are large concentrations of households with income below the ALICE Threshold in the
Pacific Northwests largest cities. Of the 7 cities in Idaho with more than 15,000 households,
5 have more than 40 percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold: Coeur
dAlene, Idaho Falls, Nampa, Pocatello, and Twin Falls (Figure 7).
In Oregon, of the 7 cities with more than 30,000 households, all have more than 30 percent
of households with income below the ALICE Threshold, and 3 have more than 40 percent:
Bend, Eugene, and Salem. And in Washington, of the 7 cities with more than 40,000
households, 4 have more than 40 percent of households with income below the ALICE
Threshold: Everett, Spokane, Tacoma, and Vancouver.
Figure 7.
Households below the ALICE Threshold, Largest Cities, Pacific
Northwest, 2013
Largest Cities in Idaho
(< 15,000 HH)
20
Number of
Households
Percent of Households
below ALICE Threshold
Boise City
87,769
38
Nampa
28,560
44
Meridian
27,420
24
Idaho Falls
21,016
40
Pocatello
20,601
41
Coeur dAlene
18,419
43
Twin Falls
16,312
43
Largest Cities in Oregon

(< 30,000 HH)
Number of
Households
Portland
253,021
30
Eugene
65,201
44
Salem
59,637
Gresham
38,775
Beaverton
38,494
Hillsboro
34,941
Bend
30,413
Largest Cities in
Washington
(< 40,000 HH)
Number of
Households
The fact that

36
surrounding
37
counties, such as
35
Yakima, Grant,
43
Kittitas, Lewis,
Klickitat, and
Skamania have
much higher
percentages
suggests that many
ALICE workers live
27
outside Seattle.
45
47
Seattle
297,920
Spokane
86,332
Tacoma
81,498
41
Vancouver
64,090
43
Bellevue
52,279
18
Kent
43,876
35
Everett
41,413
48
The map of Seattle by PUMAs (public use microareas), or areas with approximately 100,000
population, shows that the inner areas of Seattle and King County have low percentages
of households with income below the ALICE Threshold (Figure 8). In fact, four King County
PUMAs -- Sammamish, Issaquah, Mercer Island and Newcastle Cities; Snoqualmie City,
Cottage Lake, Union Hill and Novelty Hill; Maple Valley, Covington and Enumclaw Cities; and
Greater Bellevue City all have fewer than 18 percent of households with income below the
ALICE Threshold. This is not surprising given the much higher cost of living in King County.
There are three PUMA regions in Pierce County, however, that have more than 40 percent
of households with income below the ALICE Threshold: Tacoma City (Central); Lakewood
City & Joint Base Lewis-McChord; and Tacoma City (South), Parkland & Spanaway. The fact
that surrounding counties, such as Yakima, Grant, Kittitas, Lewis, Klickitat, and Skamania
have much higher percentages suggests that many ALICE workers live outside Seattle. The
commuting numbers indicate that many workers commute to jobs in the city, but live in lowercost counties.
21
Figure 8.
Percent Households below the ALICE Threshold, Seattle by PUMA, 2013
35
1
33
34
38
36
37
14
19
13
29
28
20
32
12
31
16
10
17
24
11
18
21
25
15
23
22
27
39
40
26
Percent HH below ALICE Threshold

13%
Legend: Seattle, Washington PUMAs
22
Clallam and Jefferson Counties
Clark County (North)Battle Ground City and Orchards
Clark County (Southeast)Vancouver (East), Camas and Washougal Cities
Clark County (Southwest)Vancouver City (West and Central)
Clark County (West Central)Salmon Creek and Hazel Dell
Grant and Kittitas Counties
Grays Harbor and Mason Counties
King County (Central)Renton City, Fairwood, Bryn Mawr and Skyway
King County (Central)Sammamish, Issaquah, Mercer Island and Newcastle Cities
10
King County (Far Southwest)Federal Way, Des Moines Cities and Vashon Island
11
King County (Northeast)Snoqualmie City, Cottage Lake, Union Hill and Novelty Hill
50%
King County (Northwest Central)Greater Bellevue City
13
King County (Northwest)Redmond, Kirkland Cities, Inglewood and Finn Hill
14
King County (Northwest)Shoreline, Kenmore and Bothell (South) Cities
15
King County (Southeast)Maple Valley, Covington and Enumclaw Cities
16
King County (Southwest Central)Kent City
17
King County (Southwest)Auburn City and Lakeland
18
King County (West Central)Burien, SeaTac, Tukwila Cities and White Center
19
Kitsap County (North)Bainbridge Island City and Silverdale
20
Kitsap County (South)Bremerton and Port Orchard Cities
21
Pierce County (Central)Tacoma City (Central)
22
Pierce County (East Central)Puyallup City and South Hill
23
Pierce County (North Central)Tacoma (Port) and Bonney Lake (Northwest) Cities
24
Pierce County (Northwest)Peninsula Region and Tacoma City (West)
25
Pierce County (South Central)Tacoma City (South), Parkland and Spanaway
26
Pierce County (Southeast)Graham, Elk Plain and Prairie Ridge
27
Pierce County (West Central)Lakewood City and Joint Base Lewis-McChord
28
Seattle City (Downtown)Queen Anne and Magnolia
29
Seattle City (Northeast)
30
Seattle City (Northwest)
31
Seattle City (Southeast)Capitol Hill
32
Seattle City (West)Duwamish and Beacon Hill
33
Snohomish County (Central and Southeast)Lake Stevens and Monroe Cities
34
Snohomish County (Central)Everett City (Central and East) and Eastmont
35
Snohomish County (North)Marysville and Arlington Cities
36
Snohomish County (South Central)Bothell (North), Mill Creek Cities and Silver Firs
37
Snohomish County (Southwest)Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace Cities
38
Snohomish County (West Central)Mukilteo and Everett (Southwest) Cities
39
Thurston County (Central)Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater Cities
40
Thurston County (Outer)
23
12
The map of Portland by PUMAs (public use microareas) shows that in most of the inner
areas of Portland less than 30 percent of households have income below the ALICE
Threshold, and the areas in the outer circle have much higher percentages (Figure 9). This is
not surprising given the much higher cost of living in Multnomah County than in surrounding
counties, especially Columbia, Lincoln, Clatsop, and Tillamook counties, where more than 45
percent of households have income below the ALICE Threshold. The commuting numbers
indicate that many workers commute to jobs in the city, but live in surrounding lower-cost
counties (discussed further in Section VI).
Figure 9.
Percent Households below the ALICE Threshold, Portland, Oregon
by PUMA, 2013
4
1
5
2
6
4
11
14
13
12
10
Percent HH below ALICE Threshold

13%
Legend: Portland, Oregon PUMAs
24
Portland City (North & Northeast) PUMA
Portland City (East) PUMA
Portland City (Southeast) PUMA
Portland City (Central East) PUMA
Portland City (Northwest & Southwest) PUMA
Multnomah County (East)--Gresham & Troutdale Cities PUMA
Clackamas County (South & East)--Damascus City PUMA
50%
Clackamas County (Northwest)--Oregon City, Milwaukie & Happy Valley Cities PUMA;
Oregon
Clackamas County (Northwest)--Lake Oswego, West Linn, Wilsonville & Canby Cities
PUMA; Oregon
10
Washington County (Southeast)--Tigard, Tualatin & Sherwood Cities PUMA; Oregon
11
Washington County (West)--Forest Grove, Cornelius Cities, Bethany & Oak Hills PUMA;
Oregon
12
Washington County (Central)--Hillsboro City PUMA
13
Washington County (Central)--Beaverton City (West) & Aloha PUMA
14
Washington County (Northeast)--Beaverton City (East & Central) & Cedar Mill PUMA
15
Yamhill & Polk Counties PUMA
16
Marion County (Outside Salem & Keizer Cities)--Woodburn & Silverton Cities PUMA
ALICE DEMOGRAPHICS
These households move in and out of being ALICE over time. For instance, a young ALICE
household may capitalize on their education and move above the ALICE Threshold. An older
ALICE household may experience a health emergency, lose a job, or suffer from a disaster
and slip into poverty.
While the demographic characteristics of households in poverty measured by the FPL are
well known from U.S. Census reports, the demographic characteristics of ALICE households
are not as well known. This section provides an overview of the demographics of ALICE
households and compares them to households in poverty as well as to the total population.
Except for a few notable exceptions, ALICE households generally reflect the demographics
of the overall state population. Differences are most striking for those groups who traditionally
have the lowest wages: women; racial/ethnic minorities; undocumented, language-isolated or
unskilled recent immigrants; people with low levels of education; people with a disability; and
younger veterans. County statistics for race/ethnicity and age are presented in Appendix B.
There are young

and old ALICE
households, those
with children, and
those with a family
member who has a
disability. They vary
in educational level
attained, as
well as in race
and ethnicity.
Age
There are ALICE households in every age bracket in the Pacific Northwest. The number of
ALICE households and households in poverty generally reflect their proportion of the overall
population, with the youngest overrepresented in poverty and the oldest overrepresented in
the ALICE population (Figure 10).
25
ALICE households vary in size and makeup; there is no typical configuration. In fact,
contrary to some stereotypes, the composition of ALICE households mirrors that of
the population in general. There are young and old ALICE households, those with children,
and those with a family member who has a disability. They vary in educational level attained,
as well as in race and ethnicity. They live in cities, in suburbs, and in rural areas.
Figure 10.
Household Income by Age, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Idaho
Poverty
15%
Total
ALICE
17%
8%
25%
6%
23%
33%
31%
31%
37%
Under 25 Years
36%
38%
25 to 44 Years
45 to 64 Years
65 Years and Over
Oregon
Poverty
16%
ALICE
14%
34%
Under 25 Years
5%
32%
36%
Total
25%
27%
32%
39%
36%
25 to 44 Years
4%
45 to 64 Years
65 Years and Over
Fig 10 HH Inc by Age PNW 2013 ALICE WA
Washington
Poverty
15%
33%
ALICE
13%
27%
Total
6%
22%
31%
39%
Under 25 Years
35%
39%
36%
25 to 44 Years
4%
45 to 64 Years
65 Years and Over
When looking at income levels within each age group, younger Pacific Northwest households
are more likely to have income below the ALICE Threshold. Middle-aged households (45 to
64 years) are slightly less likely to be either in poverty or ALICE, while senior households (65
years and older) are less likely to be in poverty but more likely to be ALICE (Figure 11).
26
Figure 11.
Age by Household Income, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Idaho
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Under 25 Years
25 to 44 Years
45 to 64 Years
Poverty
ALICE
65 Years and Over
Above AT
Oregon
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Under 25 Years
25 to 44 Years
Poverty
45 to 64 Years
ALICE
65 Years and Over
Above AT
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Under 25 Years
25 to 44 Years
Poverty
45 to 64 Years
ALICE
65 Years and Over
Above AT
27
Washington
ALICE households in the Pacific Northwest face specific challenges depending on age. Many
senior households continue to work, some by choice and others because of low income
(American Community Survey, 2013). The share of seniors in the labor force is:
65-69 years: 26 percent in Idaho, 27 percent in Oregon, and 30 percent in Washington
70-74 years: 14 percent in Idaho and Oregon, and 16 percent in Washington
75 and over: 5 percent in all three states
Young households
have an especially
tough time earning
enough income to
reach the ALICE
Threshold.
A comparatively low percentage of senior households live in poverty (10 percent in Idaho and
Oregon, and 9 percent in Washington) (Figure 11). This provides evidence that government
benefits, including Social Security, are effective at reducing poverty among seniors (Haskins,
2011). But the fact that a higher percent of seniors qualify as ALICE (24 percent in Idaho and
Washington, and 30 percent in Oregon) highlights the reality that these same benefits often
do not enable financial stability. This is especially true in counties where the cost of living is
high.
Young households have an especially tough time earning enough income to reach the
ALICE Threshold. One indicator is the declining number of households in this already small
age bracket. From 2007 to 2013, the number of households headed by someone under 25
years old decreased by 27 percent in Idaho, by 14 percent in Oregon, and by 8 percent in
Washington. Two main factors drove that decrease: some young workers moved in with their
parents to save money, and others left the Pacific Northwest to look for other opportunities
(Vespa, Lewis and Kreider, 2013; American Community Survey, 2013).
Race/Ethnicity
While differences in race and ethnicity are often highlighted between households in poverty
and the total population, less is known about those differences among ALICE households.
Black and Hispanic households are still over-represented as a percentage of ALICE
households, but overall, the race and ethnicity of ALICE households fairly closely mirrors that
of the Pacific Northwest population as a whole (Figure 12).
White households remain the majority in all income categories, while the distribution is mixed
for minority households. Across the region, someone who is White (White alone, not Hispanic
or Latino, U.S. Census classification) heads:
88 percent of all households, 92 percent of ALICE households, and 72 percent of
households in poverty in Idaho

households in poverty in Oregon
households in poverty in Washington
28
Figure 12.
Households by Race/Ethnicity and Income, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Idaho
ALICE
Poverty
0.7% 0.7%
Total
1.3%
8%
1.0%
0.7%
8%
13%
72%
Asian Households
0.5%
88%
92%
Native American Households
1.1%
Black Households
Hispanic Households
White Households
Oregon
3%
69%
Total
ALICE
3%
3%
8%
Asian Households
Black Households
6%
61%
ALICE
6%
7%
78%
Asian Households
1.6%
86%
Hispanic Households
Washington
Poverty
3%
8%
13%
86%
1%
2%
White Households
Total
6% 5%
15%
Black Households
1.2%
80%
Hispanic Households
7%
3.6%
8%
White Households
NOTE: Because race and ethnicity are overlapping categories, the totals for each income category do not add to 100 percent
exactly. This data is for households; because household size varies for different racial/ethnic groups, population percentages may
differ from household percentages.
29
Poverty
Originally less diverse than other regions of the country, the Pacific Northwest became
more racially and ethnically complex during World War II, with recruitment of workers for
local defense and support industries. That diversity has expanded again over the last 25
years. Although the region remains majority-White, racial minority populations in the Pacific
Northwest are now growing more quickly than the White population, as is true in much of
the U.S. Between 2000 and 2013, most of the regions largest racial minority populations
increased at higher rates than the White population (American Community Survey, 2013;
Migration Policy Institute, 2013).
Washington has a higher share of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific
Islanders, Native Americans/Alaska Natives, people of more than one race, and foreignborn residents than the nation as a whole, with the fifth-highest state percentage of Asian
residents and the fourth-highest percentage of multiracial residents in the country in 2012
(American Community Survey, 2007, 2010, and 2012). In Oregon, the percentage of Native
Americans/Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders outpaces national
averages, though these groups remain a relatively small percentage of the overall state
population (American Community Survey, 2013).
The original
inhabitants of the
Pacific Northwest
were Native
Americans living in
the region for 500
generations, and
their descendants
are a central part
of the regions
culture.
The original inhabitants of the Pacific Northwest were Native Americans living in the region
for 500 generations, and their descendants are a central part of the regions culture. Today
in Idaho there are 4 federal and state recognized tribes and 5 reservations; in Oregon there
are 10 tribes and 8 reservations, and in Washington there are 29 tribes and 27 reservations.
While Native Americans/Alaska Natives today make up less than 1.4 percent of the total
Pacific Northwest population, the Pacific Northwest tribes represent a significant percentage
of the Native American population nationwide (U.S. Census, 2015; National Conference of
State Legislatures, 2015; Buerge, 1998).
The heritage of the White population in the Pacific Northwest includes Irish, German,
Eastern European, French Canadian, and Southern European ancestry. In addition,
because race and ethnicity are overlapping categories, residents of any race can also be
ethnically Hispanic, and approximately 10 percent of the White population in each of the
three states currently identifies as Hispanic (American Community Survey, 2013; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2015).
Asians, including Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, are the largest minority group in
Washington at 6 percent of the population (not households), and the second largest in Idaho
and Oregon. Since 1990, their share of the Washington population has nearly tripled. The
largest Asian populations in the Pacific Northwest are from China, Korea, and Japan, as well
as India, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The majority of the regions Asian residents live in
King and Snohomish counties in Washington (American Community Survey, 2013; Migration
Policy Institute, 2013).
The Hispanic population accounts for the largest minority in Idaho, at 3 percent of the
population (not households), and in Oregon at 5 percent. Idaho and Washingtons Hispanic
populations have more than doubled since 1990, and Oregons has more than tripled. The
majority of the Pacific Northwests Hispanic population is from Mexico (53 percent in Idaho,
40 percent in Oregon and 25 percent in Washington); other groups come from El Salvador,
Brazil, and Colombia, with smaller groups from Puerto Rico and Cuba. Cities with high
concentrations of Hispanic residents include Cornelius and Woodburn, Oregon; Pasco,
Washington; and Boise, Idaho, which has a longstanding Basque population (American
Community Survey, 2013; Migration Policy Institute, 2013; Immigration Policy Center, 2014).
Blacks are the smallest minority group in the Pacific Northwest but were among the regions
early pioneers and have been some of Portland, Oregons longest-standing residents. Black
migration to the region increased post-World War II as Blacks were recruited for work in
30
defense-related industries, and many continue to work in the regions military bases. The
Black population increased from 8.5 percent in 1960 to 13 percent in 2013, with the largest
Black population living in the Puget Sound area of Washington (Compean, 2004; American
Community Survey, 2013; dePlace, 2012).
In addition to the racial categories represented in the poverty and ALICE breakdowns above,
1 percent of households in the Pacific Northwest identify themselves as Native American.
Another 2 percent identify themselves as Some Other Race, and because households
can select more than one race in self-identifying on the American Community Survey
questionnaire, an additional 2 percent of households in Idaho and 3 percent each in Oregon
and Washington identify as being of Two or More Races (American Community Survey,
2013) (Figure 13).
Figure 13.
Additional Households by Race and Ethnicity, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Fig 13 Additional Households by Race and Ethnicity, PNW, 2013
200,000
180,000
160,000
120,000
Native Hawaiian
100,000
Native American
80,000
Some Other Race

Two or More Races
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Source: American Community Survey, 2013
Because these groups represent a small portion of the total numbers for each county, there is
insufficient data to accurately calculate their household income status at the county level.
However, state-level poverty data reveals that these groups are more likely to struggle
financially across the Pacific Northwest. The poverty rate for individuals (household data not
available) identifying as Some other race or Native Hawaiian is more than 25 percent higher
than the rate for those identifying as White alone, and almost twice as high as for those
identifying as Two or More Races or Native American.
The median income levels of households with members identifying as Two or More Races,
Some Other Race, or Native American are significantly lower than the median income for
households identifying as White alone at least 25 percent lower in Idaho, and more than
50 percent lower for households identifying as Some Other Race. In Oregon, they range from
13 percent lower for Some Other Race and 31 percent lower for Two or More races to 50
percent lower for Native Americans. And in Washington, they are 20 percent lower for Some
Other Race, 49 percent lower for Native Americans, and 59 percent lower for Two or More
Races (American Community Survey, 2013) (Figure 14).
The poverty rate

for individuals
(household data
not available)
identifying as Some
other race or Native
Hawaiian is more
than 25 percent
higher than the rate
for those identifying
as White alone, and
almost twice as
high as for those
identifying as Two or
more races or Native
American.
31
140,000
Figure 14.
Households by Poverty Rate and Median Income by Race and Ethnicity,
Pacific Northwest, 2013
Idaho
35%
30%
25%
20%
$38,168
$34,718
$30,794
$47,378
15%
10%
5%
0%
White Alone
Some Other Race
Two or More Races
Native American
Oregon
Percent of Househods
35%
$44,967
30%
25%
$33,953
$38,883
20%
$51,015
15%
10%
5%
0%
White alone
Two or more races
Some other race
Native American
Washington
$50,063
30%
$40,371
25%
$37,747
20%
15%
$60,183
10%
5%
0%
White alone
Two or more races
32
$54,426
Some other race
Native American
Native Hawaiian
Household Type
While ALICE households come in all sizes and demographic configurations, two of the
most common ALICE household types are seniors and households with children. This is not
surprising as these demographics are associated with higher costs, especially in health care
for seniors and child care for families with children. Senior ALICE households were discussed
earlier in this section; ALICE households with children are examined further below.
Along with seniors and families with children, there are many other types of households
struggling to make ends meet as well. These other households now make up the largest
proportion of Pacific Northwest households with income below the ALICE Threshold (47
percent) (Figure 15). Other households include families with at least two members related
by birth, marriage, or adoption, but with no children under the age of 18; single-adult
households younger than 65 years; or people who share a housing unit with non-relatives
for example, boarders or roommates. Across the country, other households increased
between 1970 and 2012; the share of households comprised of married couples with children
under 18 decreased by half from 40 percent to 20 percent, while the proportion of single-adult
households increased from 17 percent to 27 percent (Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider, 2013).
Along with seniors

and families with
children, there are
many other types
of households
struggling to make
ends meet as well.
Figure 15.
Household Types by Income, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Idaho
160
160
140
121
120
100
90
80
63
60
40
20
0
14
15%
34
39
39%
45%
Poverty
33
35
25%
27%
48%
ALICE
65 and Over
Families with Children
24%
33%
43%
Above AT
Other
33
180
Oregon
500
468
450
400
350
300
200
164
150
100
50
0
253
226
250
80
36
16%
35%
114
50%
110
72
32%
Poverty
21%
47%
24%
ALICE
65 and Over
27%
49%
Above AT
Other
Washington
According to
the American
Community Survey,
most families with
children under
18 in the Pacific
Northwest have
married parents (73
percent in Idaho, 68
percent in Oregon,
and 70 percent in
Washington).
34
1,400
1,176
1,200
1,000
800
600
511
400
200
0
51
15%
253
128
165
138
37%
48%
27%
Poverty
120
23%
50%
ALICE
65 and Over
107
6%
28%
66%
Above AT
Other

According to the American Community Survey, most families with children under 18 in the
Pacific Northwest have married parents (73 percent in Idaho, 68 percent in Oregon, and 70
percent in Washington) (Figure 16). However, the lines between married couple and singleparent households are blurred. Nationally, for single-parent households, only 37 percent are
families where the parent is the sole adult. In 11 percent of single-parent families, the parent
has a cohabiting partner, and in 52 percent of single-parent families another adult age 18
or older is present. Even so, children in families with income below the ALICE Threshold are
more likely to live in single-parent families as defined above. Most single-parent families are
headed by mothers, but single-father families account for 8 percent of families with children in
the Pacific Northwest.
Not surprisingly, the most expensive household budget is for a household with young
children, due not only to these households larger size but also to the cost of child care,
preschool, and after-school care (discussed further in Section II). The biggest factors
determining the economic stability of a household with children are the number of wage
earners, the gender of the wage earners, and the number (and cost) of children. Variations of
these are discussed below.
Married-Couple Households with Children
With two income earners, married couples with children have greater means to
provide a higher household income than households with one adult. For this reason,
76 percent of married-couple families with children in the Pacific Northwest have
income above the ALICE Threshold. However, because they are such a large
demographic group, married-couple families with children still make up 47 percent
of the regions families with income below the ALICE Threshold. They are less likely
to be poor, accounting for 39 percent of families with children who live in poverty, but
they account for 55 percent of ALICE families.
Nationally, married-couple families experienced a 33 percent increase in
unemployment for at least one parent during the Great Recession. A subset of this
group, families who owned their own homes, faced a steep decrease: between 2005
and 2011, the number of households with children (under 18) that owned a home fell
by 15 percent in the Pacific Northwest, the same as the national average (Vespa,
Lewis, and Kreider, 2013).
The biggest factors

determining the
economic stability
of a household
with children are
the number of
wage earners, the
gender of the wage
earners, and the
number (and cost)
of children.
Figure 16.
Households with Children by Income, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Idaho
140,000
120,000
6,872
8,891
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
105,334
4,902
15,955
4,261
11,238
13,547
19,234
Poverty
ALICE
Married
Single Female-Headed
Above AT
Single Male-Headed
35
Families
100,000
Oregon
300,000
Families
250,000
14,750
22,901
200,000
150,000
214,898
100,000
9,620
50,000
44,232
11,380
25,413
26,084
35,401
Poverty
ALICE
Married
Single Male-Headed
Washington
600,000
500,000
Families
Households headed
by single women
with children
account for
one-fifth of all
Pacific Northwest
families with
children but make
up more than
45 percent of
households with
children below the
ALICE Threshold
because of their
disproportionately
lower incomes.
Above AT
33,028
43,122
400,000
300,000
434,807
200,000
100,000
15,503
70,491
17,086
45,374
41,775
57,070
Poverty
ALICE
Married
Above AT
Single Male-Headed
Single-female-headed Households with Children

Households headed by single women with children account for one-fifth of all Pacific
Northwest families with children but make up more than 45 percent of households
with children below the ALICE Threshold because of their disproportionately lower
incomes:
Single-female-headed households are much more likely to be in poverty: 44
percent of these households are in poverty in Idaho, as are 55 percent each in
Oregon and Washington.
36
Single-female-headed households are also likely to be ALICE: 31 percent of

these households are ALICE in Idaho, as are 35 percent in Oregon and 38
percent in Washington.
Of all families with children below the ALICE Threshold, single-female-headed
households account for 39 percent in Idaho, 46 percent in Oregon, and 47
These figures are slightly higher than the estimates by the Working Poor Families
Project (WPFP) using a different methodology: WPFP found that in Idaho in 2012,
26 percent of low-income working families with children were headed by women, as
were 35 percent in Oregon and 34 percent in Washington. The figures for singlefemale-headed households with children below the ALICE Threshold are closer to
the national rate of 39 percent of low-income working families being female-headed
(Povich, Roberts and Mather, 2014).
Single-female headed families are often highlighted as the most typical low-income
household. With only one wage earner, it is not surprising that single-parent
households are over-represented among ALICE households. For women, this is
compounded by the fact that in the Pacific Northwest, they still earn significantly
less than men, as detailed below in Figure 19. Yet it is important to note that in the
Pacific Northwest, single-female headed families account for only 12-14 percent of
working-age households below the ALICE Threshold. There are many other types of
households also struggling to afford a basic household budget.
Single-male-headed Households with Children
Households headed by single men with children account for 8 percent of all Pacific
Northwest families with children and 13 percent of families with income below the
ALICE Threshold. Though less common, the number of single-parent families
headed by men is increasing. They face similar challenges to single-female-headed
families with only one wage earner and responsibility for child care.
Demographic
groups that
are especially
vulnerable to
underemployment,
unemployment, and
lower earning power
are more likely than
other groups to be
in poverty or
to be ALICE.
Demographic groups that are especially vulnerable to underemployment, unemployment,

and lower earning power are more likely than other groups to be in poverty or to be ALICE. In
addition to the challenges faced by racial/ethnic minorities, unauthorized or unskilled recent
immigrants, and the language-isolated, three other demographic factors make a household
more likely to fall into the ALICE population: low levels of education; female gender or
transgender identity; and living with a disability. Groups with more than one of these factors
younger combat veterans, for example, who may have both a disability and lower levels of
education are even more likely to fall below the ALICE Threshold.
Lower Levels of Education

Income continues to be highly correlated with education. Across the Pacific Northwest, 89
percent of the population has at least a high school diploma, but far less of the population 25
years and older has a bachelors or advanced degree, despite the fact that median earnings
increase significantly for those with higher levels of education (Figure 17).
37
ADDITIONAL RISK FACTORS FOR BEING ALICE
Percent of Population 25 Years and Over
Figure 17.
Education Attainment and Median Annual Earnings, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Fig 18 Ed Attain + MedAnnEarn PNW 2013
40%
$31,709
35%
$27,273
30%
25%
$44,454
20%
15%
10%
$60,358
$20,496
5%
0%
Less than High School
High School
Graduate
Idaho
Some College or
Assoc. Degree
Oregon
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate or
Prof. Degree
Washington
ALICE households
are more likely to
have less education
than households
above the ALICE
Threshold, but
higher education
alone is no longer a
guarantee of a
self-sufficient
income.
Those residents with the least education are more likely to have earnings below the
ALICE Threshold. Yet with the increasing cost of education over the last decade, college
has become unaffordable for many and a huge source of debt for others. Despite receiving
substantial federal Pell Grants $628 million in Idaho, $407 million in Oregon, and $485
million in Washington students still graduate with sizable student debt. Of Idahos Class
of 2013, 68 percent graduated with an average of $26,622 in student debt; in Oregon, 60
percent graduated with an average of $25,577 in debt; and in Washington, 58 percent
graduated with an average of $24,418 in debt (National Priorities Project, 2013; Project on
Student Debt, 2014).
ALICE households are more likely to have less education than households above the ALICE
Threshold, but higher education alone is no longer a guarantee of a self-sufficient income.
Many demographic factors are interrelated and impact a households ability to meet the
ALICE Threshold. For example, according to the National Center for Education Statistics,
economically disadvantaged students, students with limited English proficiency, and students
with disabilities all have graduation rates below the state and national averages for all
students (Stetser and Stillwell, 2014).
In Oregon, the public high school graduation rate is 68 percent for all students but
significantly lower for economically disadvantaged students (61 percent), those with limited
English proficiency (52 percent), and those with disabilities (42 percent). Similarly, in
Washington, the graduation rate is 76 percent for all students but 66 percent for economically
disadvantaged students, 51 percent for those with limited English proficiency, and 56 percent
for those with disabilities. (Data is not available for Idaho (Stetser and Stillwell, 2014).) It is
not surprising that these same groups also earn lower wages later in life.
Across the Pacific Northwest, there is a striking difference in earnings between men and
women at all educational levels (Figure 18). Men earn at least 32 percent more than
women across all educational levels and as much as 135 percent more for those with
less than a high school degree (American Community Survey, 2013). This, in part, helps
explain why so many of the Pacific Northwests single-female-headed households have
incomes below the ALICE Threshold.
38
Figure 18.
Median Annual Earnings by Education and Gender, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Idaho
Median Annual Earnings
$80,000
$72,137
$70,000
$60,000
$50,329
$50,000
$40,000
$26,745
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
$35,248
$31,652
$45,791
$30,945
$22,419
$19,697
$11,382
Less than
High Sschool
High School
Graduate
Some College or
Associate Degree
Female
Bachelor's
Degree
Graduate or
Professional Degree
Male
Oregon
$70,000
$66,572
$60,000
$52,350
$50,000
$40,000
$36,581
$30,878
$30,000
$20,000
$22,062
$50,297
$34,622
$25,257
$21,569
$15,118
$10,000
$0
Less than
High Sschool
High School
Graduate
Some College or
Associate Degree
Female
Bachelor's
Degree
Graduate or
Professional Degree
Male
Washington
$84,578
$80,000
$70,000
$65,874
$60,000
$55,430
$50,000
$42,799
$40,000
$35,951
$30,000
$20,000
$25,536
$24,258
$41,508
$29,640
$16,913
$10,000
$0
Less than
High Sschool
High School
Graduate
Some College or
Associate Degree
Female
Bachelor's
Degree
Graduate or
Professional Degree
Male
39
$90,000
Gender
Although women make up nearly half of the U.S. workforce, earn more college and graduate
degrees than men, and are the equal or primary breadwinner in four out of ten families, they
continue to earn significantly less than men in comparable jobs.
According to the BLSs Current Population Survey, womens median earnings are lower than
mens in nearly all occupations. In 2014, female full-time workers still made only 78 cents on
each dollar earned by men, a gap of 22 percent. In addition, male-dominated occupations
tend to pay more than female-dominated occupations at similar skill levels. Despite many
changes to the economy, these disparities remain persistent features of the U.S. labor market
(BLS, 2015a; Hegewisch and Ellis, 2015). The persistence of the gender wage gap helps
explain why female-headed households are disproportionately likely to live in poverty or to be
ALICE.
Although women
make up nearly
half of the U.S.
workforce, earn
more college and
graduate degrees
than men, and are
the equal or primary
breadwinner in four
out of ten families,
they continue to
earn significantly
less than men in
comparable jobs.
40
Older women are also more likely to be poor: recent data reveal that women age 65 and
older are nearly twice as likely to be poor compared to older men (Lee & Shaw, 2008). Across
the Pacific Northwest, senior women are more likely to live longer: for those 65 years and
older, in Idaho there are 14 percent more women than men, and in Oregon and Washington
there are 21 percent more women than men. For those 75 years and older, there are onequarter more women than men across the three states. Older women are also more likely
to be in poverty. In Idaho in 2013, 10 percent of women 65 years and older were in poverty,
compared to 6 percent of men in the same age group. And in Oregon and Washington, more
than 9 percent of these women were in poverty, compared to 7 percent of men (American
Community Survey, 2013).
Though there is less data available about transgender workers, they also face economic
consequences of discrimination. Despite having attended college or gained a college
degree or higher at 1.74 times the rate of the general population (47 percent versus 27
percent), respondents to the 2008 National Transgender Discrimination Survey experienced
unemployment at twice the rate and extreme poverty ($10,000 annually or less) at four times
the rate of the general population (Harrison, Grant and Herman, 2012),
Disability
Households with a member who is living with a disability are more likely than other
households to be in poverty or ALICE. These households often have both increased health
care expenses and reduced earning power. The national median income for households
where one adult is living with a disability is generally 60 percent less than for those without
disabilities (American Community Survey, 2006 and 2013).
The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that 36 percent of Americans under
age 50 have been disabled at least temporarily, and 9 percent have a chronic and severe
disability. The economic consequences of disability are profound: 79 percent of Americans
with a disability experience a decline in earnings, 35 percent have lower after-tax income,
and 24 percent have a lower housing value. The economic hardship experienced by the
chronically and severely disabled is often more than twice as great as that of the average
household (Meyer and Mok, 2013). In addition, those with a disability are more likely to live
in severely substandard conditions and pay more than one-half of their household income for
rent (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, March 2011).
The Pacific Northwests numbers fit with these national findings. Notably, residents with a
disability are far less likely to be employed: in Idaho only 23 percent of working-age residents
with a disability are employed, compared to 59 percent of those with no disability. And for
those who are working, they earn less. The median annual earnings for a worker with a
disability are $18,259 in Idaho (compared to $25,219 for those without a disability), $18,408
in Oregon (compared to $26,880 for those without a disability), and $23,081 in Washington
(compared to $32,412 for those without a disability) (American Community Survey, 2013).
At least 15 percent of people in the Pacific Northwest have a lasting physical, mental,
or emotional disability that impedes them from being independent or able to work.
Approximately 21 percent of residents aged 16 and over with a severe disability live
in poverty, compared with 14 percent of the total population. Disability is generally
disproportionately associated with age; in Idaho, 41 percent of residents 65 years or older
are living with a disability, as well as 39 percent in Oregon and 38 percent in Washington
(American Community Survey, 2013).
Multiple Factors: Unskilled Immigrants

Related to race and ethnicity is immigration, with Hispanics and Asians making up the
majority of the Pacific Northwests 1.4 million immigrants. In terms of place of birth, 37
percent of immigrants in the Pacific Northwest were born in Latin America (South America,
Central America, and Mexico) and the Caribbean, 36 percent were born in Asia, 16 percent
were born in Europe, and 5 percent each were born in Africa and North America (Canada,
Bermuda, Greenland, and St. Pierre and Miquelon) (Migration Policy Institute, 2013; Maciag,
2014) (Figure 19).
Figure 19.
Population by Place of Birth, Pacific Northwest, 2013
600,000
At least 15 percent
of people in the
Pacific Northwest
have a lasting
physical, mental, or
emotional disability
that impedes
them from being
independent or
able to work.
Population
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Asia
Latin Am
Europe
Idaho
Oregon
Africa
Canada
Washington
Source: Migration Policy Institute, 2013
Immigrant groups vary widely in language, education, age, and skills. Nationally,
immigrants are only slightly more likely to be poverty-level or ALICE households than
non-immigrants. However, for some subsets of immigrant groups such as noncitizens; more recent, less-skilled, or unskilled immigrants; and those who are
language-isolated the likelihood increases (Suro, Wilson and Singer, 2012).
Immigrants in general earn less than native-born residents. The median annual income for
foreign-born residents in Idaho is $36,876 compared to $47,696 for residents born in-state;
in Oregon, $43,729 compared to $50,926 for residents born in-state; and in Washington,
$51,902 compared to $60,618 for residents born in-state (U.S. Census, 2013).
41
Yet the immigrant community also includes some of the regions wealthiest residents. One
indicator of this is education attainment in Oregon and Washington. In Oregon, foreign-born
residents are less likely than the total population to graduate from high school (20.3 percent
compared to 24.6 percent for all residents) or to get a bachelors degree (14.1 percent
compared to 18.7 percent for all residents). But they achieve at the same rate as the overall
population at the higher end: 11.3 percent have a graduate or professional degree, compared
to 11 percent for all Oregon residents (U.S. Census, 2013).
The same is true in Washington: foreign-born residents are less likely than the total
population to graduate from high school (19.9 percent compared to 23.6 percent for all
residents), and get a bachelors degree (18.2 percent compared to 20.4 percent for all
residents). But they achieve at the same rate as the overall population at the higher end: 12.8
percent have a graduate or professional degree, compared to 11.5 percent for all Washington
residents (U.S. Census, 2013).
Across income and educational levels, the data on immigrants reinforces the point that
ALICE households are working and are an essential part of the economy. Immigrant workers
are an important part of the regional economy in the Pacific Northwest, contributing at
least $5 billion to the Idaho economy, $19 billion to the Oregon economy, and $64 billion
to the Washington economy. Immigrants comprise 5.9 percent of Idahos population and
7.2 percent of the states workforce, 10 percent of Oregons population and 12.4 percent of
the states workforce, and 13.3 percent of Washingtons population and 16.2 percent of the
states workforce (Immigration Policy Center, 2015).
Immigrant workers
are an important
part of the regional
economy in the
Pacific Northwest,
contributing at
least $5 billion to
the Idaho economy,
$19 billion to the
Oregon economy,
and $64 billion to
the Washington
economy.
Unauthorized immigrants also make a significant contribution to the overall workforce,

despite the fact that their population numbers are low. Unauthorized immigrants are often not
captured in the U.S. Census, but the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that they account for
roughly 2.2 percent of Idahos population and 2.8 percent of the states workforce; in Oregon,
roughly 4.3 percent of the states population and 5.3 percent of the states workforce; and
in Washington, roughly 3.4 percent of the states population and 5.1 percent of the states
workforce (Pew, 2011).
However, some immigrant groups face language and citizenship barriers that keep them
from jobs, higher wages, and resources especially those who are unauthorized and do
not have access to the same public support as other residents (Suro, Wilson and Singer,
2012). Unauthorized immigrants make up more than one-quarter of the immigrant population
in the Pacific Northwest. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimates that there
were 50,000 unauthorized immigrants in Idaho, or roughly 43 percent of the states immigrant
population in 2012; 120,000 unauthorized immigrants in Oregon, or roughly 31 percent of
the states immigrant population; and 230,000 unauthorized immigrants in Washington,
or roughly 24 percent of the states immigrant population (Pew Research Center Hispanic
Trends, 2014).This group of immigrants works in the shadow economy where there are few
or no labor protections, such as minimum wage or safety regulations, and they have little or
no access to the public safety net.
According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in general, state and local
governments carry most of the cost of providing a range of public services to unauthorized
immigrants particularly services related to education, health care, and law enforcement.
Because these governments provide these services to all residents in their jurisdiction,
the amount spent on services to unauthorized immigrants represents a small percentage
of the total. The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local
governments, however, do not fully offset the total cost of services that they receive, and
federal aid programs do not fully cover the costs that those governments incur (Merrell,
2007).
42
Research by the U.S. Census Bureau has found that English-speaking ability among
immigrants influences employment status, ability to find full-time employment, and earning
levels, regardless of the particular language spoken at home. Those with the highest level
of spoken English have the highest earnings, which approach the earnings of English-only
speakers (Day and Shin, 2005). There are more than 18 different foreign languages spoken
in Idaho, and 28 each in Oregon and Washington. Spanish is the most common at about 8
percent. Of the population over the age of 5, 10.4 percent in Idaho, 14.8 in Oregon and 18.5
percent in Washington are linguistically isolated, meaning that no one in the household age
14 or older speaks English only or speaks English very well (U.S. Census, 2000; American
Multiple Factors: Veterans

There are 1 million veterans in Idaho, 2.8 million in Oregon and 4.8 million in Washington.
While local data about veterans is difficult to obtain, local reports of unemployed and
homeless veterans suggest that many veterans especially the youngest likely live below
the ALICE Threshold. This includes 2,940 homeless Pacific Northwest veterans in 2014, an 8
percent decrease from the total of 3,202 in 2011 (HUD, 2014).
Unemployment is a major challenge for younger vets. Seventy-one percent of Idaho veterans
are in the labor force (including those looking for work), as are 69 percent of Oregon veterans
and 75 percent of veterans in Washington (American Community Survey, 2013). But while
two-thirds of veterans in the Pacific Northwest are 35 years or older (Figure 20), the most
recent and youngest those 18 to 34 years old, numbering 354,053 in Idaho, 882,585 in
Oregon, and 1.6 million in Washington are those most likely to be unemployed or in
struggling ALICE households.
Unemployed veterans are most at risk of being in poverty or living in ALICE households,
especially when they have exhausted their temporary health benefits and their
unemployment benefits eventually expire. Younger veterans, in particular, embody a trifecta
of factors that make groups more likely to be ALICE: They are dealing with the complex
physical, social, and emotional consequences of military service; they are more likely to have
less education and training than veterans of other service periods; and they are more likely to
have a disability than older veterans.
Unemployed
veterans are most
at risk of being in
poverty or living in
ALICE households,
especially when
they have exhausted
their temporary
health benefits and
their unemployment
benefits eventually
expire.
Figure 20.
Veterans by Age, Pacific Northwest, 2013
NUMBER OF
VETERANS
PERCENT OF TOTAL
VETERANS
PERCENT OF
VETERANS
UNEMPLOYED
18 to 34 years
354,053
33%
10%
35 to 54 years
370,001
35%
6%
55 to 64 years
172,242
16%
6%
65 years and over
166,926
16%
NA
AGE
43
Veterans by Age, Idaho
Veterans by Age, Oregon

NUMBER OF
VETERANS
PERCENT OF TOTAL
VETERANS
PERCENT OF
VETERANS
UNEMPLOYED
18 to 34 years
882,585
32%
16%
35 to 54 years
963,072
35%
10%
55 to 64 years
474,597
17%
6%
65 years and over
455,169
16%
NA
AGE
Wartime
deployments often
result in physical
or psychological
trauma that affects
the ability of new
veterans to find
work. Deployed
veterans receive
combat-specific
training that
is often not
transferable to
the civilian labor
market.
44
Veterans by Age, Washington

NUMBER OF
VETERANS
PERCENT OF TOTAL
VETERANS
PERCENT OF
VETERANS
UNEMPLOYED
18 to 34 years
1,574,188
33%
12%
35 to 54 years
1,712,946
36%
6%
55 to 64 years
775,132
16%
5%
65 years and over
717,715
15%
NA
AGE
Source: American Community Survey, 2013; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013
The root causes of higher unemployment of veterans from recent deployments are uncertain,
but the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago suggests a number of possibilities. Wartime
deployments often result in physical or psychological trauma that affects the ability of new
veterans to find work. Deployed veterans receive combat-specific training that is often not
transferable to the civilian labor market. In addition, new veterans are typically younger and
less educated than average workers two factors that predispose job-seekers to higher
unemployment rates (Faberman and Foster, 2013; BLS, 2015b).
II. HOW COSTLY IS IT TO LIVE

IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST?
Measure 2 The Household Budget: Survival vs. Stability
AT-A-GLANCE: SECTION II
The Household Survival Budget estimates what it costs to afford the five basic
household necessities: housing, child care, food, transportation, and health care.
The average annual Household Survival Budget for a four-person family living
in Idaho is $46,176, in Oregon is $50,796, and in Washington is $52,152. In
comparison, the U.S. poverty level is $23,550 per year for the same sized family.
The Household Survival Budget for a family translates to an hourly wage (for 40
hours per week for 50 weeks per year), of $23.09 for one parent in Idaho; $25.40
in Oregon; and $26.08 in Washington.
The average annual Household Survival Budget for a single adult is $16,660
in Idaho, which translates to an hourly wage of $8.33; $18,240 in Oregon,
which translates to an hourly wage of $9.12; and $17,280 in Washington, which
translates to an hourly wage of $8.64.
For a single adult in the Pacific Northwest, an efficiency apartment accounts
for 32-37 percent of the Household Survival Budget, above the affordability
guidelines of 30 percent.
Child care represents a familys greatest expense: an average in Idaho of $902
per month for two children in registered home-based care and $962 for licensed
and accredited child care; an average in Oregon of $934 and $1,262; and an
average in Washington of $1,223 and $1,441.
The Household Stability Budget totals $85,896 per year in Idaho, $94,164
in Oregon, and $98,340 in Washington, at least 85 percent higher than the
Household Survival Budget in each state.
To afford the Household Stability Budget for a two-parent family, one parent in
Idaho must earn $42.95 per hour or each parent must earn $21.48 per hour; one
parent in Oregon must earn $47.08 per hour or each parent must earn $23.54
per hour; and one parent in Washington must earn $49.17 per hour or each
parent must earn $24.59 per hour.
45
The Household Stability Budget measures how much income is needed to

support and sustain an economically viable household, and includes a 10 percent
savings plan.
The cost of basic household necessities increased across the Pacific Northwest from 2007 to
2013 despite low inflation during the Great Recession. As a result, 37 percent of households
in Idaho, 38 percent in Oregon, and 32 percent in Washington are challenged to afford the
basic necessities. This section presents the Household Survival Budget, a realistic measure
estimating what it costs to afford the five basic household necessities: housing, child care,
food, transportation, and health care.
THE HOUSEHOLD SURVIVAL BUDGET

The Household Survival Budget follows the original intent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
as a standard for temporary sustainability (Blank, 2008). This budget identifies the minimum
cost option for each of the five basic household items needed to live and work in the modern
economy. Figure 21 shows a statewide average Household Survival Budget for each of the
three states in the Pacific Northwest. Each budget presents two variations, one for a single
adult and the other for a family with two adults, a preschooler, and an infant. A Household
Survival Budget for each county in the region is presented in Appendix C, and additional
family variations are available at http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice.
The Household
Survival Budget
identifies the
minimum cost
option for each
of the five basic
household items
needed to live and
work in the modern
economy.
46
The average annual Household Survival Budget for a four-person family living in Idaho is
$46,176, an increase of 10 percent from the start of the Great Recession in 2007; in Oregon
it is $50,796, an increase of 8 percent; and in Washington it is $52,152, an increase of 7
percent. The increase across the region was driven primarily by increases in the cost of
housing, food, and health care. The rate of inflation over the same period was 12 percent.
The Household Survival Budget for a family translates to an hourly wage in Idaho of
$23.09, for 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year for one parent (or $11.54 per hour
each, if two parents work); an hourly wage in Oregon of $25.40 (or $12.70 each if two
parents work); and an hourly wage in Washington of $26.08 (or $13.04 each if two
parents work).
The annual Household Survival Budget for a single adult is $16,660 in Idaho, which
translates to an hourly wage of $8.33; $18,240 in Oregon, which translates to an hourly wage
of $9.12; and $17,280 in Washington, which translates to an hourly wage of $8.64.
As a frame of reference, it is worth noting that the Household Survival Budgets for the Pacific
Northwest states are lower than the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments
Section 8 Income Limits, the MIT Living Wage Calculator, and the Economic Policy Institutes
Family Budget Calculator for Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the Self-sufficiency
Standard for Oregon (HUD, 2013, MIT, 2015; Economic Policy Institute, 2013; Center for
Womens Welfare OR, 2014; Center for Womens Welfare WA, 2014).
Figure 21.
Household Survival Budget, Pacific Northwest State Averages, 2013
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
2007 2013
PERCENT CHANGE
Housing
$470
$656
11%
Child Care
$-
$902
5%
Food
$191
$579
17%
Transportation
$350
$700
2%
Health Care
$119
$474
30%
Taxes
$133
$187
-1%
Miscellaneous
$126
$350
10%
Monthly Total
$1,388
$3,848
10%
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,660
$46,176
10%
Hourly Wage
$8.33
$23.09
10%
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
2007 2013
PERCENT CHANGE
Housing
$492
$732
13%
Child Care
$-
$934
4%
Food
$191
$579
17%
Transportation
$342
$683
1%
Health Care
$119
$474
25%
Taxes
$238
$445
-5%
Miscellaneous
$138
$385
8%
Monthly Total
$1,520
$4,233
8%
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,240
$50,796
8%
Hourly Wage
$9.12
$25.40
8%
47

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
2007 2013
PERCENT CHANGE
Housing
$528
$805
17%
Child Care
$-
$1,223
2%
Food
$191
$579
17%
Transportation
$334
$666
-4%
Health Care
$119
$473
27%
Taxes
$137
$205
-16%
Miscellaneous
$131
$395
8%
Monthly Total
$1,440
$4,346
7%
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,280
$52,152
7%
Hourly Wage
$8.64
$26.08
7%
Source: See Appendix C
The Household
Survival Budget
varies across Pacific
Northwest counties.
The basic essentials
were least expensive
for a family in 20
counties in Idaho,
where the cost was
$43,956 per year,
and for a single
adult in Kitsap
County, Washington
at $13,341.
In comparison to the annual Household Survival Budget, the U.S. poverty level was $23,550
per year for a family of four and $11,490 per year for a single adult in 2013, and the median
household income in Idaho was $46,783 per year, in Oregon was $50,251 per year, and in
Washington was $58,405 per year (Noss, 2014).
Increased costs occurred primarily from 2007 to 2010, but increases continued through
2013. The 11-17 percent increase in housing is particularly surprising because it happened
during a downturn in the housing market; however, inflation of 12 percent accounted for
much of the increase. It is more understandable against the backdrop of the foreclosure crisis
that occurred at the top and middle of the housing market during the Great Recession. As
those who were laid off or became foreclosed homeowners moved into lower-end housing,
there was increased demand for an already limited housing supply, and housing prices rose
accordingly.
The Household Survival Budget varies across Pacific Northwest counties. The basic
essentials were least expensive for a family in 20 counties in Idaho, where the cost was
$43,956 per year, and for a single adult in Kitsap County, Washington at $13,341. They were
most expensive in Blaine County, Idaho for a family at $67,188, and in Hood River County,
Oregon for a single adult at $21,595. For each countys Survival Budget, see Appendix J.
Housing
The cost of housing for the Household Survival Budget is based on HUDs Fair Market Rent
(FMR) for an efficiency apartment for a single adult and a two-bedroom apartment for a
family. The cost includes utilities but not telephone service, and it does not include a security
deposit.
48
Housing costs vary by county across the Pacific Northwest. Rental housing is least expensive
in 22 counties in Idaho as well as Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Lake, Malheur, and
Wheeler counties in Oregon and Adams and Garfield counties in Washington for a twobedroom apartment at $626 per month and Bannock, Cassia, and Power counties in Idaho
counties for an efficiency apartment at $372. Rental housing is most expensive in King and
Snohomish counties in Washington at $1,104 for a two-bedroom apartment and $758 per
month for an efficiency apartment. To put these costs in national context, the National Low
Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) reports that Idaho is the 46th most expensive state in the
country for housing, Oregon is the 25th most expensive, and Washington is the 10th most
expensive (NLIHC, 2014).
In the Household Survival Budget, housing for a family accounts for 17-19 percent of the
budget, much less than the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments (HUD)
affordability guidelines of 30 percent (HUD, 2012). However, for a single adult, an efficiency
apartment accounts for 32-37 percent of the Household Survival Budget and the renter would
be considered housing burdened. The availability of affordable housing units is addressed
in Section V.
Child Care
In the Pacific Northwest, income inadequacy rates are higher for households with children at
least in part because of the cost of child care, which varies across the region. The Household
Survival Budget includes the cost of registered home-based child care, which is $476 per
month for an infant in Idaho, $487 per month in Oregon, and $660 per month in Washington;
the cost for a 4-year-old is $426 in Idaho, $447 in Oregon, and $563 in Washington. Child
care costs were calculated using market rate analyses from the Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare, the Oregon Department of Health and Human Services, and Child Care Aware
of Washington (see Appendix C for sources).
Child care can be the most expensive item in a familys budget; in Idaho it accounts for 23
percent of the total Household Survival Budget, in Oregon for 22 percent, and in Washington
for 28 percent. Costs vary across counties: the least expensive home-based child care for
two children, an infant and a preschooler, is found in Malheur County, Oregon at $675 per
month, and the most expensive home-based child care is in Owyhee, Teton, and Blaine
counties in Idaho at $1,801 per month.
Child care can be

the most expensive
item in a familys
budget; in Idaho
it accounts for 23
percent of the total
Household Survival
Budget, in Oregon
for 22 percent, and
in Washington for
28 percent.
Though home-based child care sites are registered with the state, the quality of care that
they provide is not fully regulated and may vary widely between locations. However, licensed
and accredited child care centers, which are regulated to meet standards of quality care, are
significantly more expensive with an average cost of $503 per month for an infant in Idaho,
$698 per month in Oregon, and $820 per month in Washington, while the cost for a 4-yearold is $459 in Idaho, $564 in Oregon, and $621 in Washington (see Appendix C for sources).
Food
The original U.S. poverty level was based in part on the 1962 Economy Food Plan, which
recognized food as a most basic element of economic well-being. The food budget for
the Household Survival Budget is based on the U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDA)
Thrifty Food Plan, in keeping with the purpose of the overall budget to show the minimum
budget amount possible for each category. This minimal plan also forms the basis for the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits.
49
And these costs have slowly risen from 2007 to 2013, by 5 percent in Idaho, 4 percent in
Oregon, and 2 percent in Washington. These findings are reinforced by a recent study from
the Oregon Child Care Research Partnership, which found that it was 24 percent harder
(measured by increase of prices combined with decrease in income) for a family to purchase
care in 2012 than in 2004, and 33 percent harder for single parents (Weber, 2015).
Like the original Economy Food Plan, the Thrifty Food Plan was designed to meet the
nutritional requirements of a healthy diet, but it includes foods that need a lot of home
preparation time with little waste, plus skill in both buying and preparing food. The cost of
the Thrifty Food Plan takes into account broad regional variation across the country but
not localized variation, which can be even greater, especially for fruits and vegetables
(Hanson, 2008; Leibtag, Ephraim, and Kumcu, 2011). For this reason, the food budget for the
Household Survival Budget is the same for all three states in the Pacific Northwest.
Within the Household Survival Budget, the cost of food in the Pacific Northwest is $191
per month for a single adult and $579 for a family of four (USDA, 2013). The food category
increased across the Pacific Northwest by a surprisingly large 17 percent from 2007 to 2013,
more than the rate of inflation. The original FPL was based on the premise that food accounts
for one-third of a household budget, so that a total household budget was the cost of food
multiplied by three. Yet with the large increases in the cost of other parts of the household
budget, food now accounts for only 13 to 15 percent of the Household Survival Budget in
the Pacific Northwest. Because the methodology of the FPL has not evolved to incorporate
changing lifestyles and work demands, the FPL significantly underestimates the cost of even
the most minimal household budget today.
Transportation
Health care costs

experienced the
largest percent
increase in the
budget in all three
states, increasing
by 25 to 30 percent
from 2007 to 2013.
The fourth item in the Household Survival Budget is transportation costs, a prerequisite
for most employment in the Pacific Northwest. The average cost of transportation by car
is several times greater than by public transport. According to the Consumer Expenditure
Survey, a family in the Pacific Northwest pays an average of $700 per month for gasoline,
motor oil, and other vehicle expenses. By comparison, the average cost for public
transportation is $88 per month, but it is only available in a few counties across the region,
primarily Multnomah County, Oregon, and Kitsap and King counties in Washington. The
Household Survival Budget in Figure 21 shows state average transportation costs adjusted
for household size. Actual county costs are shown in Appendix J.
Transportation costs represent 15 to 18 percent of the average Household Survival Budget
for a family and 23 to 25 percent for a single adult. Transportation costs vary widely across
the region. For example, the Housing and Transportation Affordability Index finds that for
low-income Idaho households, transportation costs take up more than 26 percent of the
household budget in Boise City and Hailey, 32 percent in Twin Falls, and up to 37 percent
in Rexburg; in Oregon, more than 21 percent in the Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro Area and
39 percent in Prineville; and in Washington, more than 19 percent in the Seattle - Tacoma Bellevue Area and 34 percent in Pullman (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2011).
Health Care
The fifth item in the Household Survival Budget is health care costs. The health care
budget includes the nominal out-of-pocket health care spending indicated in the Consumer
Expenditure Survey. In 2013, the average health care cost in the Pacific Northwest was $119
per month for a single adult (8-9 percent of the budget) and $474 per month for a family (1112 percent of the budget). Health care costs experienced the largest percent increase in the
budget in all three states, increasing by 25 to 30 percent from 2007 to 2013. Since it does
not include health insurance, such a low health care budget is not realistically sustainable in
the Pacific Northwest, especially if any household member has a serious illness or a medical
emergency.
50
Seniors have many additional health care costs beyond those covered by Medicare. The
Household Survival Budget does not cover these additional necessities, many of which
are very costly and can be a prohibitive additional budget expense for ALICE families. For
example, according to the John Hancock 2013 Cost of Care Survey, poor health can add
additional costs in the Pacific Northwest with wide geographic variation. Costs for daily adult
day care range from $1,200 per month in Edmonds, Washington to $2,820 in Portland,
Oregon; for assisted living, costs range from $2,608 per month in Bellingham, Washington to
$3,477 in Portland, Oregon (John Hancock, 2013).
Taxes
Official tax rates vary across the Pacific Northwest. A single adult in Idaho earning $17,000
per year pays on average $1,600 in federal and state taxes, and a family earning around
$48,000 per year, benefitting from the federal Child Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent
Care Credit, pays approximately $1,500. These rates include standard federal and state
deductions and exemptions. State income tax rates in Idaho and Oregon remained flat from
2007 to 2013, but the income brackets increased slightly each year. There is no income tax in
Washington. The largest portion of the tax bill, however, is payroll deduction taxes for Social
Security and Medicare. Overall, tax rates fell across the Pacific Northwest, primarily driven
by the reduced payroll tax rates in 2012. The average tax bill for a single adult decreased by
1 percent in Idaho, 5 percent in Oregon and 16 percent in Washington (IRS, Idaho State Tax
Commission, and Oregon Legislative Review Office, 2007, 2010 and 2013). For tax details,
see Appendix C.
While not typically

considered essential
to survival, taxes
are nonetheless a
legal requirement
of earning income
in the Pacific
Northwest, even
for low-income
households.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a benefit for working individuals with low to moderate
incomes, is not included in the tax calculation because the gross income threshold for the
federal EITC is $14,340 for a working adult or $48,378 for a family of four, less than the
Household Survival Budget for a family of four in the Pacific Northwest states (IRS, 2013).
However, many ALICE households at the lower end of the income scale are eligible for EITC.
In addition to the federal EITC, Oregon offers an EITC at 6 percent of the federal rate, and
Washington offers one at 8 percent. Idaho does not have an EITC. The IRS estimates that
in 2012, the federal EITC helped more than 136,000 families in Idaho, 283,000 families in
Oregon, and 453,000 families in Washington (IRS, 2012). In addition, according to the Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities, between 2011 and 2013 the federal EITC and the Child Tax
Credit lifted 77,000 Idaho taxpayers out of poverty (including 42,000 children), as well as
129,000 Oregon taxpayers (including 65,000 children) and 164,000 Washington taxpayers
(including 81,000 children) (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2014).
In every state in the U.S., at least some low- or middle-income groups pay more of their
income in state and local taxes than wealthy families. Washington, however, has the most
regressive state and local tax systems in the nation, according to the Institute on Taxation
and Economy Policy. Because there is no income tax in Washington, all tax revenue is raised
from sales and property taxes, and the sales tax is especially regressive. For comparison,
Washingtons poor families (lowest income quintile) pay 16.8 percent of their total income in
state and local sales and property taxes while in neighboring Idaho and Oregon, the bottom
quintile pay 8.5 percent and 8.1 percent, respectively (Department of Treasury, 2014; Institute
on Taxation and Economic Policy, 2013).
51
While not typically considered essential to survival, taxes are nonetheless a legal
requirement of earning income in the Pacific Northwest, even for low-income households.
Taxes total 10 percent of the average Household Survival Budget for a single adult in Idaho
and Washington and 16 percent in Oregon, and 5 percent of the average Budget for a family
in Idaho and Washington, and 11 percent in Oregon.
What is Missing from the Household Survival Budget?
The budget also

does not allow for
any savings, leaving
a family vulnerable
to any unexpected
expense, such as
a costly car repair,
natural disaster,
or health issue.
For this reason,
a household on a
Household Survival
Budget is described
as just surviving.
52
The Household Survival Budget is a bare-minimum budget, not a get-ahead budget. The
small Miscellaneous category, 10 percent of all costs, covers overflow from the five basic
categories. It could be used for items many consider additional essentials, such as toiletries,
diapers, cleaning supplies, or work clothes. With changes in technology over the last decade,
phone usage has shifted so dramatically that the Miscellaneous category could also have
to cover the cost of a smartphone, which many people use in place of a home landline.
According to the Pew Research Center, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of U.S. adults own a
smartphone, up from 35 percent in 2011. Nearly half (46 percent) of smartphone owners say
their smartphone is something they couldnt live without. Yet at the same time, this added
expense has presented new challenges. Almost one-quarter (23 percent) of Pew survey
respondents report that they have canceled or suspended their smartphone service at some
point because of cost (Anderson, 2015).
The Miscellaneous category is not enough money to purchase cable service, or cover
automotive or appliance repairs. It does not allow for dinner at a restaurant, tickets to the
movies, or travel. And there is no room in the Household Survival Budget overall for a
financial indulgence such as holiday gifts, a new television, a bedspread something that
many households take for granted. The budget also does not allow for any savings, leaving
a family vulnerable to any unexpected expense, such as a costly car repair, natural disaster,
or health issue. For this reason, a household on a Household Survival Budget is described
as just surviving. The consequences of this for households and the wider community are
discussed in Section VI.
THE HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGET

Reaching beyond the Household Survival Budget, the Household Stability Budget is a
measure of how much income is needed to support and sustain an economically viable
household. The Stability Budget represents the basic household items necessary for a
household to sustainably and reliably participate in the modern economy. Across the Pacific
Northwest, the Household Stability Budget is at least 85 percent higher than the
Household Survival Budget (Figure 22). That comparison highlights yet again how minimal
the expenses are in the Household Survival Budget.
Figure 22.
Average Household Stability Budget vs. Household Survival Budget, Pacific
Northwest, 2013
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT, 1 PRESCHOOLER
STABILITY
SURVIVAL
PERCENT CHANGE
Housing
$1,130
$656
72%
Child Care
$962
$902
7%
Food
$1,098
$579
90%
Transportation
$1,100
$700
57%
Health Care
$1,037
$474
119%
Miscellaneous
$533
$350
52%
Savings
$533
$0
NA
Taxes
$765
$187
309%
Monthly Total
$7,158
$3,848
86%
ANNUAL TOTAL
$85,896
$46,176
86%
Hourly Wage
$42.95
$23.09
86%
STABILITY
SURVIVAL
PERCENT CHANGE
Housing
$1,296
$732
77%
Child Care
$1,262
$934
35%
Food
$1,098
$579
90%
Transportation
$1,091
$683
60%
Health Care
$1,037
$474
119%
Miscellaneous
$578
$385
50%
Savings
$578
$0
NA
Taxes
$906
$445
104%
Monthly Total
$7,847
$4,233
85%
ANNUAL TOTAL
$94,164
$50,796
85%
Hourly Wage
$47.08
$25.40
85%
53

STABILITY
SURVIVAL
PERCENT CHANGE
Housing
$1,360
$805
69%
Child Care
$1,441
$1,223
18%
Food
$1,099
$579
90%
Transportation
$1,080
$666
62%
Health Care
$1,036
$473
119%
Miscellaneous
$601
$395
52%
Savings
$601
$0
NA
Taxes
$977
$205
377%
Monthly Total
$8,195
$4,346
89%
ANNUAL TOTAL
$98,340
$52,152
89%
Hourly Wage
$49.17
$26.08
89%
Source: See Appendix D
Because savings
are a crucial
component of
self-sufficiency,
the Household
Stability Budget
also includes a 10
percent savings
category.
The spending amounts in the Household Stability Budget are those that can be maintained
over time. Better quality housing that is safer and needs fewer repairs is represented in the
median rent for single adults and single parents, and in a moderate house with a mortgage.
Child care has been upgraded to licensed and accredited child care, where quality is fully
regulated. Food is elevated to the USDAs Moderate Food Plan, which provides more variety
than the Thrifty Food Plan and requires less skill and time for shopping and cooking, plus one
meal out per month, which is realistic for a working family. For transportation, the Stability
Budget includes leasing a car, which allows drivers to more easily maintain a basic level of
safety and reliability. For health care, the budget adds in health insurance and is represented
by the cost of an employer-sponsored health plan. The Miscellaneous category represents
10 percent of the five basic necessities; it does not include a contingency for taxes, as in
the Household Survival Budget. Full details and sources are listed in Appendix D, as are the
Household Stability Budget figures for a single adult.
Because savings are a crucial component of self-sufficiency, the Household Stability Budget
also includes a 10 percent savings category. Savings of around $600 per month for a family
is probably enough to invest in education and retirement, while $170 per month for a single
adult might be enough to cover the monthly payments on a student loan or build toward the
down payment on a house. However, in many cases, the reality is that savings are used for
an emergency and never accumulated for further investment.
The Household Stability Budget for a family with two children is moderate in what it includes,
yet it still totals $85,896 per year in Idaho, $94,164 in Oregon, and $98,340 in Washington.
This is almost double the Household Survival Budget and the median family income in each
state. To afford the Household Stability Budget for a two-parent family, one parent in Idaho
must earn $42.95 an hour or each parent must earn $21.48 an hour; one parent in Oregon
must earn $47.08 an hour or each parent must earn $23.54 an hour; and one parent in
Washington must earn $49.17 an hour or each parent must earn $24.59 an hour.
54
The Household Stability Budget for a single adult totals $25,860 per year in Idaho, $26,976
per year in Oregon, and $28,056 per year in Washington. To afford the Household Stability
Budget, a single adult must earn $12.93 an hour in Idaho, $13.49 an hour in Oregon, and
$14.03 an hour in Washington.
III. WHERE DOES ALICE WORK?

HOW MUCH DOES ALICE EARN
AND SAVE?
AT-A-GLANCE: SECTION III

Middle-wage, middle-skill jobs have declined in the Pacific Northwest while
positions in lower-paying service occupations have continued to grow.
In the Pacific Northwest, more than half of jobs pay less than $20 per hour, with
the percent ranging from 54 percent in Washington to 72 percent in Idaho.
A full-time job that pays $20 per hour grosses $40,000 per year, which is less
than the Household Survival Budget for a family of four in the region.
More than any

demographic
feature, ALICE
households are
defined by their jobs
and their savings
accounts.
There are more than 181,000 retail sales jobs in the Pacific Northwest, paying on
average $10.82 per hour. This salary falls short of meeting the family Household
Survival Budget by almost half.
Between 2007 and 2013, the number of total jobs in the Pacific Northwest fell by
1 percent, and the number of all jobs paying less than $30 fell by 10 percent.
In 2012, 25 percent of Idaho households, 28 percent of Oregon households, and
23 percent of Washington households had less than $4,632 in savings or other
assets.
From 2007 to 2012, housing values dropped by 27 percent in Idaho and 25

percent in Oregon and Washington, and many who could not keep up with
mortgage payments were forced to sell their homes at a loss.
More than any demographic feature, ALICE households are defined by their jobs and their
savings accounts. The ability to afford household needs is a function of income, but ALICE
workers have low-paying jobs. Similarly, the ability to be financially stable is a function of
savings, but ALICE households have few or no assets and little opportunity to amass liquid
assets. As a consequence, these households are more likely to use costly alternative financial
services and to risk losing their housing in the event of an unforeseen emergency or health
issue. This section examines the declining job opportunities and savings trends for ALICE
households across the Pacific Northwest.
55
Many households in the region do not have basic banking access. In 2011,
more than half of households with an annual income below $30,000 had used
an Alternative Financial Product, such as non-bank money orders or non-bank
check cashing.
Changes in the labor market over the past thirty-five years, including labor-saving
technological advances, the decline of manufacturing, growth of the service sector, increased
globalization, declining unionization, and the failure of the minimum wage to keep up with
inflation, have reshaped the U.S. economy. Most notably, middle-wage, middle-skill jobs have
declined while lower-paying service occupation levels have grown (Autor, 2010; National
Employment Law Project, 2014). These changes have greatly impacted the Pacific Northwest
economy as well.
The Pacific Northwests economic productivity was not hit as hard by the Great Recession as
some areas, and the size of the labor force has continued to grow. The dominant economy in
the region is Washington, with a GDP surpassing $400 trillion in 2013 double the size of
Oregons economy and eight times greater than that of Idaho (Figure 23). The GDP in each
state was higher in 2013 than 2007, with Idaho and Washington recovering from a slight drop
during the Great Recession (BLS, March 2014; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2014).
Figure 23.
Total Gross Domestic Product, Pacific Northwest, 2007-2013
$450,000
$400,000
The Pacific
Northwests
economic
productivity was not
hit as hard by the
Great Recession as
some areas, and
the size of the labor
force has continued
to grow.
56
Billions
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
2007
2010
Idaho
Oregon
2013
Washington
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2014
From 2007 to 2010, the labor force increased by 10 percent in Idaho, by 1 percent in Oregon,
and by 2 percent in Washington. Yet employment growth in the region has lagged behind
the national average. Leading up to the Great Recession, employment growth was higher in
Idaho at 1.7 percent and Washington at 1.1 percent than the national average of 0.8 percent,
while Oregon was at the national average. From 2010 to 2013 the national average annual
percent change was 1.1 percent; but while Washington matched that rate, growth lagged at
0.6 percent in Idaho and 0.7 percent in Oregon. At the same time, the participation rate in
the labor force decreased by more than 4 percentage points across the region (67.8 percent
to 63.3 percent in Idaho, 65.7 percent to 61.3 percent in Oregon, and 68 percent to 63.1
percent in Washington). As a result, employment numbers also decreased from 2007 to
2013 (from 65.7 to 60.2 percent of residents in Idaho, from 62.3 to 57 percent in Oregon, and
from 64.8 to 59.2 percent in Washington) (BLS, 2015; U.S. Department of Commerce, 2015;
Washington Employment Security Department, 2015).
INCOME CONSTRAINED
One of the essential characteristics of ALICE households is that they are Income
Constrained. Changes in the Pacific Northwests economy over the last several decades
have reduced the job opportunities for ALICE households. The Pacific Northwest now faces
an economy dominated by low-paying jobs. Across the Pacific Northwest, more than
half of jobs pay less than $20 per hour, with the percent ranging from 54 percent in
Washington to 72 percent in Idaho (Figure 24). A full-time job that pays $20 per hour
grosses $40,000 per year, which is less than the Household Survival Budget for a family of
four in all Pacific Northwest states. And in all three states, at least half of jobs in that category
pay only $10 to $15 per hour. At even slightly higher wages, the percentage of jobs declines
sharply across the region: only one-quarter of Idaho jobs pay between $20 and $40 per hour,
as do only 32 percent of jobs in Oregon, and 34 percent in Washington, with two-thirds of
those jobs in each state paying between $20 and $30 per hour. And in all three states, less
than 1 percent of jobs pay more than $60 per hour.
Figure 24.
Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Number of Jobs (in thousands)
Idaho
450
400
350
72%
$15-$20
300
250
200
$10-$15
25%
150
$30-$40
100
50
0
Changes in the
Pacific Northwests
economy over the
last several decades
have reduced the
job opportunities for
ALICE households.
The Pacific
Northwest now
faces an economy
dominated by
low-paying jobs.
less than $10
$20-$30
Less than $20
$20-$40
2%
$40-$60
0.3%
$60-$80
0.2%
Above $80
1,200
1,000
800
62%
$15-$20
600
400
32%
$30-$40
$10-$15
200
0
$20-$30
less than $10

Less than $20
$20-$40
5%
$40-$60
0.3%
$60-$80
0.7%
Above $80
57
Oregon
Washington
1,600
54%
1,400
1,200
$15-$20
34%
1,000
800
600
$30-$40
$10-$15
400
11%
$20-$30
200
0
less than $10
Less than $20
$20-$40
$40-$60
0.9%
0.5%
$60-$80
Above $80
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013b
Manufacturing
took an especially
big hit during the
Great Recession.
Since then the
sector has partially
recovered in terms
of output and
profits, but with
fewer employees.
58
Over the last several decades, the Pacific Northwest experienced a structural shift from
relatively high-wage manufacturing jobs to relatively low-wage service industry jobs, such as
tourism, office and administrative support, health care support industries, sales, education
and training, transportation and material moving, and food preparation and serving. Other
staples of the economy such as agriculture and mining have long relied on low-wage jobs.
Manufacturing took an especially big hit during the Great Recession. Since then the sector
has partially recovered in terms of output and profits, but with fewer employees. The Pacific
Northwest economy is also vulnerable to the international economy, especially in terms of
commodity prices for both agriculture and mining, as well as demand for Pacific Northwest
exports. The most obvious indicator of the shift in the economy is the fact that government
(federal, state, and local) is now the largest employer in the region (Washington Employment
Security Department, 2015; Shumway, 2013; Fruits, 2012; City of Portlands Planning and
Sustainability Commission, 2015).
Jobs data from 2007 to 2013 shows that the trend away from manufacturing is slowing,
especially with the reduction in low-paying jobs through the Great Recession (Figure 25). The
number of total jobs in the Pacific Northwest fell by 1 percent, from 5,063 million in 2007 to
5,023 million in 2013, and the number of all jobs paying less than $30 fell by 10 percent, or
431 million jobs. Gains in jobs paying more than $30 were significant at 390 million but were
not enough to offset the loss of lower-paid jobs. The hollowing out of middle-paying jobs was
most pronounced in Washington, with a drop of 16 percent of jobs paying $20-$30 per hour,
and in Idaho with an 8 percent drop. However, in Oregon, the number of jobs paying $20-$30
per hour increased by 9 percent.
900
Number of jobs
2007: 5,063,650
2013: 5,023,010
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Less than
$10
$10-$15
$15-$20
2007
$20-$30
$30-$40
$40-$60
Above $60
2013
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013b
Service sector jobs have become an essential and dominant component of the Pacific
Northwests economy, with occupations employing the largest number of workers now
concentrated in this sector. Two hallmarks of the service sector economy are that these jobs
pay low wages and that workers must be physically on-site; cashiers, nurses aides, and
security guards cannot telecommute or be outsourced. Of the top 20 largest occupations in
terms of number of jobs (Figure 26), all require the worker to be there in person, yet only a
fifth of the jobs pay enough to support the basic household budget at more than $20 per hour
(21 percent in Idaho, 22 percent in Oregon, and 21 percent in Washington). This means that
the Pacific Northwests economy is dependent on jobs whose wages are so low that workers
cannot afford to live near their jobs even though most are required to work on-site.
Of the top 20
largest occupations
in terms of number
of jobs, all require
the worker to be
there in person, yet
only a fifth of the
jobs pay enough to
support the basic
household budget at
more than $20
per hour.
In Idaho, only three of the top 20 jobs pay more than $20 per hour: Registered Nurses,
General and Operations Managers, and Elementary School Teachers, Except Special
Education. In Oregon, too, three of the top 20 jobs pay more than $20 per hour: Registered
Nurses, General and Operations Managers, and Sales Representatives in Wholesale and
Manufacturing. The picture is slightly different in Washington, where six of the top 20 jobs
pay more than $20 per hour: Registered Nurses, Sales Representatives in Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Accountants and Auditors, and Business Operations Specialists, as well
as Software Developers who earn significantly more at $52.92 per hour and General and
Operations Managers at $50.88 per hour.
Low-paid, service-sector workers cannot afford the Household Survival Budget. By way of
example, the most common occupation in the Pacific Northwest is retail sales; there are
more than 181,000 retail sales jobs across the region, paying on average $10.82 per hour,
or $21,640 full-time year round. These jobs fall short of meeting the family Household
Survival Budget by more than half.
59
Number of Jobs (in Thousands)
Figure 25.
Number of Jobs by Hourly Wage, Pacific Northwest, 2007 to 2013
Figure 26.
Occupations by Employment and Wage, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Occupations by Employment and Wage, Idaho, 2013
NUMBER
OF JOBS
MEDIAN HOURLY
WAGE
Retail Salespersons
21,320
$10.10
Customer Service Representatives
16,150
$12.21
Cashiers
14,980
$9.02
Office Clerks, General
14,530
$12.84
Registered Nurses
12,150
$28.36
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers
11,160
$16.95
General and Operations Managers
11,080
$33.41
Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers,

Including Fast Food
10,260
$8.62
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants
10,240
$13.44
Waiters and Waitresses
10,220
$8.57
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping

Cleaners
8,900
$10.02
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand
8,790
$11.69
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks
8,300
$15.28
Personal Care Aides
7,680
$8.90
Nursing Assistants
7,520
$10.69
Teacher Assistants
7,120
$10.56
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education
6,910
$22.27
First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative

Support Workers
6,480
$19.88
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers
6,050
$10.48
First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers
6,020
$15.73
OCCUPATION
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Wage Survey All Industries Combined, 2013
60
Occupations by Employment and Wage, Oregon, 2013

NUMBER
OF JOBS
MEDIAN HOURLY
WAGE
Retail Salespersons
60,120
$11.00
Cashiers
34,650
$10.14
31,700
$14.73

Including Fast Food
31,020
$9.31
Registered Nurses
28,490
$38.64
27,030
$15.68
26,190
$9.23
25,290
$12.00

Cleaners
25,260
$11.75
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal,

Medical, and Executive
24,560
$16.11
24,000
$38.57
23,620
$17.14
21,220
$18.07
Cooks, Restaurant
20,270
$10.64
Personal Care Aides
17,420
$10.73
16,680
$12.62
Teacher Assistants
16,060
$14.66
Food Preparation Workers
15,890
$9.51
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing
15,520
$25.67
Medical Secretaries
14,860
$15.94
OCCUPATION
61
Occupations by Employment and Wage, Washington, 2013

NUMBER
OF JOBS
MEDIAN HOURLY
WAGE
Retail Salespersons
99,570
$11.36
Cashiers
66,060
$11.06

Including Fast Food
57,300
$9.47
Registered Nurses
53,060
$36.30
Software Developers, Applications
52,000
$52.92
42,960
$9.57
42,180
$13.64
41,280
$14.52
39,980
$16.67
39,480
$18.50
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal,

Medical, and Executive
38,380
$17.75

Cleaners
37,950
$13.42
35,990
$13.37
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing
34,970
$28.61
Teacher Assistants
33,280
$15.01
30,780
$50.88
28,340
$19.72
Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
27,540
$18.51
Accountants and Auditors
27,440
$32.16
Business Operations Specialists, All Other
26,280
$32.40
OCCUPATION
In addition to
those who were
unemployed
as defined by
the official
unemployment
rate in 2013
there are many
underemployed
Pacific
Northwesterners
people who
are employed part
time for economic
reasons or who have
stopped looking for
work but would like
to work.
62
In addition to those who were unemployed as defined by the official unemployment rate in
2013 6.1 percent in Idaho, 7.9 percent in Oregon, and 7 percent in Washington there
are many underemployed Pacific Northwesterners people who are employed part time for
economic reasons or who have stopped looking for work but would like to work. In fact, in
2013, 12.7 percent of the workforce was underemployed in Idaho, 16.5 percent in Oregon,
and 14 percent in Washington (BLS, 2013a).
In terms of full- and part-time employment, in Idaho 68 percent of men (284,267) and 50
percent of women (175,314) work full time (defined as more than 35 hours per week, 50 to
52 weeks per year), and 32 percent of men and 50 percent of women work part time (Figure
27). Similarly, in Oregon, 63 percent of men (641,479) and 49 percent of women (449,396)
work full time and 37 percent of men and 51 percent of women work part time. And even
more women work full time in Washington: 68 percent of men (1.28 million) and 54 percent
of women (876,394) work full time, and 32 percent of men and 46 percent of women work
part time. Jobs paying less than $20 per hour are less likely to be full time. With women
working more part-time jobs, their income is correspondingly lower than that of their male
counterparts.
Figure 27.
Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Gender, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Number of Workers (in housands)
Idaho
68%
300
250
200
50%
150
29%
100
15%
12%
50
0
35 Hours Or More,
50 To 52 Weeks
14%
35 Hours Or More,
Less Than 49 Weeks
Female
15 To 34 Hours
Per Week
9%
3%
1 To 14 Hours
Per Week
Male
Oregon
700
63%
600
500
49%
400
30%
300
200
100
0
35 Hours Or More,
50 To 52 Weeks
17%
16%
13%
9%
35 Hours Or More,
Less Than 49 Weeks
Female
15 To 34 Hours
Per Week
5%
1 To 14 Hours
Per Week
Male
1,400
68%
1,200
1,000
54%
800
600
27%
400
12%
200
0
35 Hours Or More,
50 To 52 Weeks
15%
7%
35 Hours Or More,
Less Than 49 Weeks
Female
13%
15 To 34 Hours
Per Week
4%
1 To 14 Hours
Per Week
Male
63
Washington
Shifts in Sources of Income

The sources of income for Pacific Northwest households shifted from 2007 to 2013, with
most of the changes occurring during the Great Recession. Most notably, government
assistance increased and investment income decreased. While some of these changes have
reversed, none have returned to 2007 levels. Figure 28 shows the percent change for various
sources of income from 2007 to 2010 in dark color and from 2010 to 2013 in light color.
Over that time period, the number of households earning a wage or salary income was flat in
Idaho, decreased by 1 percent in Oregon, and increased by 2 percent in Washington, while
the number of households with self-employment income decreased in all three states, by 9
percent in Idaho, 10 percent in Oregon, and 8 percent in Washington. Interest, dividend, and
rental income increased by 3 percent in Idaho but decreased by 6 percent in Oregon and 7
The impact of the aging population was evident in Idaho by the 15 percent increase in
the number of households receiving retirement income and a 26 percent increase in
households receiving Social Security income; those increases were 13 percent and 24
percent, respectively, in Oregon, and slightly less in Washington with a 7 percent increase
in retirement income and a 20 percent increase in Social Security income (American
The sources
of income for
Pacific Northwest
households shifted
from 2007 to 2013,
with most of the
changes occurring
during the Great
Recession.
Figure 28.
Percent Change in Household Sources of Income, Pacific Northwest,
2007 to 2013
Idaho
Self Employment income
Interest Dividends Rental Income
Earnings
Retirement Income
Social Security Income
SSI
TANF GA
SNAP
-20%
0%
20%
40%
change 2007-2010
64
60%
80%
100%
change 2010-2013
120%
Oregon
Interest Dividends Rental income
Earnings
Retirement income
Social Security income
SSI
TANF GA
SNAP
-20%
0%
20%
40%
change 2007-2010
60%
80%
100%
120%
change 2010-2013
Washington
Interest Dividends Rental income
Earnings
Retirement income
Social Security income
SSI
TANF GA
The impact of the

financial downturn
on households was
also evident in the
striking increase
in the number of
Pacific Northwest
households
receiving income
from government
sources other than
Social Security.
SNAP
-20%
0%
20%
40%
change 2007-2010
60%
80%
100%
120%
change 2010-2013
The impact of the financial downturn on households was also evident in the striking increase
in the number of Pacific Northwest households receiving income from government sources
other than Social Security. While not all ALICE households qualified for government support
between 2007 and 2013, many that became unemployed during this period began receiving
government assistance for the first time. The number of households receiving Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) increased by more than 59 percent in Idaho, 39 percent in Oregon,
and 34 percent in Washington; SSI includes welfare payments to low-income people who are
65 and older and to people of any age who are blind or disabled. The number of households
receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or General Assistance (GA),
programs that provide income support to adults without dependents, increased by more
than 56 percent in Idaho, 74 percent in Oregon, and 40 percent in Washington. At the same
time, the number of households receiving Food Stamps (SNAP) increased by more than 114
percent in Idaho, 87 percent in Oregon, and 92 percent in Washington.
65
ASSET LIMITED
The second defining feature of ALICE households is their lack of savings. Given the
mismatch between the cost of living and the preponderance of low-wage jobs, accumulating
assets is difficult in the Pacific Northwest. The lack of assets makes ALICE households more
vulnerable to emergencies and it also increases their costs, such as alternative financing fees
and high interest rates, which limits efforts to build more assets.
In 2012, households considered to be asset poor defined by the Corporation for
Enterprise Development (CFED) as not having enough net worth to subsist at the poverty
level for three months without income ranged from 23 percent in Washington to 25 percent
in Idaho to 28 percent in Oregon. In other words, an asset poor family of three in that year
had less than $4,632 in savings or other assets. The percentage of households without
sufficient liquid assets was even higher, ranging from 31 percent in Washington to 38
percent in Oregon to 44 percent in Idaho. Liquid assets include cash or a savings account,
but not a vehicle or home (CFED, 2012) (Figure 29).
Figure 29.
Households by Wealth, Pacific Northwest, 2012
Fig 29 HHs by Wealth PNW 2012
50%
44%
45%
Given the
mismatch
between the cost
of living and the
preponderance of
low-wage jobs,
accumulating
assets is difficult
in the Pacific
Northwest.
Many more households would be considered asset poor if the criterion were an
inability to subsist for three months without income at the ALICE Threshold instead
of at the outdated Federal Poverty Level. In fact, the Pew Research Center reports that
almost half of Americans, 48 percent of survey respondents, state that they often do not have
enough money to make ends meet (Pew Research Center, 2012).
40%
38%
35%
25%
31%
28%
30%
25%
24%
23%
25%
19%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
"Asset Poor"
"Liquid Asset
Poor"
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Source: American Community Survey, 2012; Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2014
66
Investments
Less than one-quarter of all Pacific Northwest households had an investment that produces
income, such as stocks or rental properties, in 2012. The number of households across the
region with investments decreased by 30 percent through the Great Recession, a clear
consequence of the stock market crash. This large reduction in investment income fits with
the national trend of reduced assets for households of all income types. When combined with
an emergency, the loss of these assets forced many households below the ALICE Threshold
(American Community Survey, 2007 and 2012).
Data on wealth at the state level is limited, but the national information available suggests
that the Pacific Northwest fits within national trends of a decline in wealth for low-income
households. From 1983 to 2010, the lowest-wealth families those in the bottom 20 percent
saw their wealth fall well below zero, meaning that their average debts exceeded their
assets. Middle-wealth families across the country experienced an increase in wealth of
13 percent, while by contrast, the highest-wealth families experienced an increase of 120
percent (McKernan, Ratcliffe, Steuerle and Zhang, 2013).
According to the Urban Institute, the racial wealth gap was even larger (McKernan, Ratcliffe,
Steuerle and Zhang, 2013). The collapse of the labor, housing, and stock markets beginning
in 2007 impacted the wealth holdings of all socio-economic groups nationally, but in
percentage terms, the declines were greater for less-advantaged groups as defined by racial/
ethnic minority status, education, and pre-recession income and wealth (Pfeffer, Danziger,
and Schoeni, 2013).
A drop in wealth is also the reason many households become ALICE households. Drawing
on financial assets that can be liquidated or leveraged, such as savings accounts, retirement
accounts, home equity, and stocks, is often the first step households will take to cope with
unemployment. Once these assets are used up, financial instability increases (The Pew
Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project, 2013).
The number
of households
across the region
with investments
decreased by 30
percent through the
Great Recession, a
clear consequence
of the stock market
crash.
Because the banking needs of low- to moderate-income individuals and small businesses are
often not filled by community banks and credit unions, Alternative Financial Products (AFP)
establishments have expanded to fill the unmet need for small financial transactions (Flores,
2012).
67
Once assets have been depleted, the cost of staying financially afloat increases for ALICE
households. Generally, access to credit can provide a valuable source of financial stability
and in some cases does as much to reduce hardship as tripling family income (Mayer
and Jencks, 1989; Barr and Blank, 2008). Just having a bank account lowers financial
delinquency and increases credit scores (Shtauber, 2013). But many households in the
Pacific Northwest do not have basic banking access. According to CFED in 2013, 5.4
percent of households in Idaho were unbanked, and 19 percent were under-banked (i.e.,
households that have a mainstream account but use alternative and often costly financial
services for basic transaction and credit needs); in Oregon, 4.5 percent of households
were unbanked and 17.1 percent were under-banked; and in Washington, 4.1 percent of
households were unbanked and 17.2 percent were under-banked (CFED, 2014).
AFPs provide a range of services including non-bank check cashing, non-bank money
orders, non-bank remittances, payday lending, pawnshops, rent-to-own agreements, and
tax refund anticipation loans. In 2011, 55 percent of Idaho households with an annual
income below $30,000 had used an AFP, while for households with an annual income
above $75,000, that figure was 30.5 percent. In Oregon, those figures were 52 percent
of lower-income households compared with only 25.7 percent of higher-income
households; and in Washington, it was 54 percent of lower-income households
compared with only 36.1 percent of higher-income households (Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 2013).
Detailed use of AFPs is available only for the more populated Washington state. The most
commonly used AFPs in Washington are non-bank money orders, with 32 percent of all
households and 60 percent of unbanked households having used a non-bank money order
in 2011. The next most commonly used AFP is non-bank check cashing, used by 12 percent
of all households and 57 percent of unbanked households, followed by pawnshops used by
9 percent of the total population but 30 percent of the unbanked, and payday lending used
by 11 percent overall and 7 percent of the unbanked. The use of other AFPs by the total
population is less than 5 percent. However, unbanked households make use of a range of
other AFPs: 13 percent have used rent-to-own agreements, 8 percent have used non-bank
remittances, and 4 percent have used refund anticipation loans (FDIC, 2013) (Figure 30).
The most
Figure 30.
commonly used
Use of Alternative Financial Products by Banking Status, Washington, 2011
AFPs in Washington
are non-bank
70%
money orders, with
60%
32 percent of all
50%
households and 60
40%
percent of unbanked
30%
households having
20%
used a non-bank
10%
money order
0%
in 2011.
Non-Bank
Non-Bank
Payday Lending Pawn shops
Non-Bank
Rent-to-Own
Refund
Fig 30 Use of Alternative Financial Products
Money Order
Check Cashing
Remittance
All households
Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2013
68
Unbanked
Anticipation
Loans
And for those households that stretched to buy a home in the mid-2000s, the drop in the
housing market caused serious problems. From 2007 to 2012, housing values dropped by
27 percent in Idaho and 25 percent in Oregon and Washington according to the Federal
Reserves Housing Price Index, and they have only recently started to increase (Federal
Reserve of St. Louis, 2014). This decline, combined with unemployment, underemployment,
and reduced wages, meant that many households could not keep up their mortgage
payments. The drop in homeownership was especially steep in Idaho, falling from 75.5
percent in 2009 to 69.6 percent in 2014; in Oregon, ownership rates fell from 68.2 percent
in 2009 to 62.8 percent in 2014; and in Washington, the drop was from 67.6 percent in 2005
to 62.7 percent in 2013 (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2015). Many who sold their
homes lost money, with some owing more than the sale price. Overall, the current mortgage
foreclosure rate is 2 percent in Idaho, 2.9 percent in Oregon, and 2.3 percent in Washington
compared to 2.8 percent nationally (CoreLogic, 2013).
From 2007 to
2012, housing
values dropped
by 27 percent
in Idaho and 25
percent in Oregon
and Washington
according to the
Federal Reserves
Housing Price Index,
and they have only
recently started
to increase.
69
Home ownership is an asset that has traditionally provided financial stability, and in the
Pacific Northwest, 44 percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold own
their home. Yet low incomes and declining home values have made it financially difficult for
many ALICE homeowners to maintain their homes. In addition, some residents who want to
buy a home but do not have funds for a down payment or cannot qualify for a mortgage turn
to risky and expensive lease or rent-to-own options (Partnership for Strong Communities,
2013; FDIC, 2013).
IV. HOW MUCH INCOME AND

ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED TO
REACH THE ALICE THRESHOLD
Measure 3 The ALICE Income Assessment
AT-A-GLANCE: SECTION IV
Across the Pacific Northwest, the total needed to ensure all households had
income at the ALICE Threshold is $64 billion. Families earn $27 billion and public
assistance provides an additional $21 billion, leaving an Unfilled Gap of $16 billion,
or 25 percent of what is needed.
In Idaho, the total annual income (including Social Security) of poverty-level and
ALICE households is $3.2 billion, which is only 40.5 percent of the amount needed
to reach the ALICE Threshold of $8 billion statewide. In Oregon, total income is
$9.6 billion, only 43.1 percent of the amount needed to reach the ALICE Threshold
of $22.2 billion statewide. In Washington, total income is $14.2 billion, only 42
percent of the amount needed to reach the ALICE Threshold of $33.8 billion
statewide.
The total annual public and private spending on households below the ALICE
Threshold, which includes families in poverty, is $2.5 billion in Idaho, $6.8 billion in
Oregon, and $11.7 billion in Washington.
It would require approximately $2.3 billion in additional wages or public resources

for all Idaho households to have income at the ALICE Threshold. That figure would
be $5.9 billion in Oregon and $7.9 billion in Washington.
The average benefit from federal and state government and nonprofit sources
(excluding health care) was lowest in Idaho at $3,154 per household, and similar
in Oregon at $3,418, but more than double in Washington at $7,754. On average,
each household in Idaho also received $8,254 in health care resources from
government and hospitals in 2013, and a similar amount in Oregon at $8,319, but a
much higher amount of $12,152 in Washington.
In Idaho, 136,000 ALICE and poverty-level households received an aggregate
$303 million for an average refund of $2,221 to reduce their taxes through the
federal EITC in 2012. In Oregon, 283,000 ALICE and poverty-level households
received an aggregate $574 million for an average refund of $2,025, and in
Washington 453,000 ALICE and poverty-level households received an aggregate
$941 million for an average refund of $2,080.
Without public and nonprofit spending, ALICE households across the Pacific
Northwest would face great hardship; many more would be qualified as living below
the Federal Poverty Level.
70
Thirty-five percent of Pacific Northwest households do not have enough income to reach
the ALICE Threshold for financial security. But how far below the ALICE Threshold are their
earnings? How much does the government spend in an attempt to help fill the gap? And is it
enough to enable all households to meet their basic needs?
Recent national studies have quantified the cost of public services needed to support lowwage workers, specifically at big box retail chain stores and fast food restaurants (Allegretto
et al., 2013; Dube and Jacobs, 2004; Wider Opportunities for Women, 2011). But the total
cost of public and nonprofit assistance for struggling households had not been tallied for
a state until the first United Way ALICE Report for New Jersey (Hoopes, 2012). Using that
methodology, the ALICE Income Assessment provides a tool to measure this assistance
to ALICE and poverty households. Because funds are allocated differently for different
programs (some based on the FPL or multiples, and others using local cost budgets), it is
not possible to separate spending on ALICE from spending on those in poverty. In fact, some
programs that are focused on those in poverty, such as Medicaid, end up supporting other
low-income residents as well (Finkelstein, Hendren and Luttmer, 2015).
THE ALICE INCOME ASSESSMENT

The ALICE Income Assessment is a tool that measures how much income a household
needs to reach the ALICE Threshold as well as how much they actually earn and how much
public assistance is provided to help them meet their basic needs. Public assistance used
in this analysis includes only programs that are directed specifically at low-income families
and individuals; it does not include programs such as neighborhood policing, which are
provided to all families. In addition, the Assessment includes only programs that directly help
ALICE families meet the basic Household Survival Budget, such as TANF and Medicaid; it
does not include programs that assist low-income families in broader ways, such as college
subsidies. The ALICE Income Assessment totals the income needed to reach the ALICE
Threshold (see the Household Survival Budget in Section II), then subtracts earned income,
as well as government and nonprofit assistance. The amount not covered is the Unfilled Gap,
highlighted in Figures 31, 33, and 34.
The ALICE Income

Assessment is a
tool that measures
how much income
a household needs
to reach the ALICE
Threshold as well
as how much they
actually earn and
how much public
assistance is
provided to help
them meet their
basic needs.
Income Assessment for Idaho

Idaho ALICE Threshold Earned Income and Assistance = Unfilled Gap

$5.7 billion
= $2.3 billion
The total annual income of poverty-level and ALICE households in Idaho is $3.2 billion, which
includes wages and Social Security. This is only 40.5 percent of the amount needed just to
reach the ALICE Threshold of $8 billion statewide. Government and nonprofit assistance
makes up an additional 31.3 percent, but that still leaves an Unfilled Gap of 28.2 percent, or
$2.3 billion. The consequences of the Unfilled Gap for ALICE households are discussed in
Section VI.
The total annual public and private spending on Idaho households below the ALICE
Threshold, which includes families in poverty, is $2.5 billion (Figure 31), equal to 4 percent of
Idahos $61 billion Gross Domestic Product (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2014). That
spending includes several types of assistance:
71
$8 billion
Health care assistance is $1.8 billion, the largest single category, and adds another 22.6
percent
Cash public assistance delivers $341 million, adding another 4.3 percent
Government programs spend $212 million, or 2.7 percent
Nonprofit programs spend $133 million, or 1.7 percent
Figure 31.
Aggregate Resources to Reach the ALICE Threshold, Idaho, 2013
Fig 31 Aggregate Resources to Reach ALICE Threshold 2013 ID
Government
Programs
2.7%
Cash Public
Assistance
4.3%
Health Care
22.6%
Unfilled Gap
28.2%
Nonprofits
1.7%
Income
40.5%
Total = $8 Billion
Source: Office of Management and Budget, 2014; Department of Treasury, 2015; American Community Survey, 2013; National
Association of State Budget Officers, 2014; NCCS Data Web Report Builder, 2010
DEFINITIONS
Earned Income = Wages, dividends, Social Security
Nonprofits = Human services revenue not from the government or user fees
Cash Public Assistance = Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Government Programs = Head Start, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly food stamps), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC), housing, and human services, federal and
state
Health Care = Medicaid, Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), community
health benefits
Unfilled Gap = Shortfall to ALICE Threshold
72
Health care accounts for the largest single amount of assistance to low-income households
in Idaho, $1.8 billion, or 72 percent of all spending. This figure includes federal grants for
Medicaid, the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Hospital Charity Care;
state matching grants for Medicaid, CHIP, and Medicare Part D Clawback Payments; and
community benefits provided by Idaho hospitals (Office of Management and Budget, 2014;
NASBO, 2014; NCCS Data Web Report Builder, 2010). Health care is separated from other
public spending because it has become such a large category and is a different type of
spending.
Outside of health care, Cash Public Assistance and Government Programs comprise the
remainder of public spending on low-income families. Breaking down this spending by
federal and state sources provides additional insights. Federally funded programs for Idaho
households below the ALICE Threshold total $544 million and are the second-largest source
of assistance, accounting for 22 percent of spending on the states low-income households
(Office of Management and Budget, 2014).
The federal programs fall into four categories:
Social services are the largest category, spending $340 million on Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Social
Service Block Grant.
Education spending is $30 million. Only programs that help children meet their basic
needs or are necessary to enable their parents to work are included. They are Head
Start, Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Education, the Rural and LowIncome Schools Program, and Homeless Children and Youth Education. Though
advanced education is vital to future economic success, it is not a component of the
basic Household Survival Budget, so programs such as Pell grants are not included in
the education spending figure.
Food programs provide $105 million in assistance, including the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), school breakfast and lunch
programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC).
Outside the
category of
government
spending, nonprofit
support from
human service
organizations in
Idaho is $133
million, or 5 percent
of assistance to
households below
the ALICE
Threshold.
Idaho state government assistance for households below the ALICE Threshold (excluding
health care) totals $9 million and accounts for 0.4 percent of assistance to the states lowincome households. This category includes state matching grants for public assistance such
as TANF and other cash benefits, as reported by the National Association of State Budget
Officers (NASBO, 2014).
Outside the category of government spending, nonprofit support from human service
organizations in Idaho is $133 million, or 5 percent of assistance to households below the
ALICE Threshold. Although many nonprofits also receive government funding to deliver
programs, the $133 million figure does not include government grants or user fees (NCCS
Data Web Report Builder, 2010). Most of the $133 million is raised by the nonprofits from
corporations, foundations, and individuals. Human services nonprofits provide a wide array
of services for households below the ALICE Threshold including job training, temporary
housing, and child care (Figure 32).
73
Housing programs account for $68 million, including Section 8 Housing Vouchers, the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG).
Figure 32.
Sources of Public and Private Assistance to Households below the ALICE
Threshold, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Source of Assistance
Idaho
Spending in Millions
Oregon
Washington
Federal
Social Services
$340
$823
$1,564
Education
$30
$74
$123
Food
$105
$244
$429
Housing
$68
$294
$554
State Government
$9
$74
$125
Nonprofits
$133
$463
$1,765
Health Care
$1,796
$4,800
$7,146
TOTAL
$2,481
$6,772
$11,706
Line items are rounded to millions of dollars and as a result may not add up precisely to the total.
The total annual

public and private
spending on
Oregon households
below the ALICE
Threshold, which
includes families
in poverty, is $6.8
billion, equal to 3
percent of Oregons
$204 billion Gross
Domestic Product.
Income Assessment for Oregon

Oregon ALICE Threshold Earned Income and Assistance = Unfilled Gap
$22.2 billion
$16.3 billion
= $5.9 billion
The total annual income of poverty-level and ALICE households in Oregon is $9.6 billion,
which includes wages and Social Security. This is only 43.1 percent of the amount needed
just to reach the ALICE Threshold of $22.2 billion statewide. Government and nonprofit
assistance makes up an additional 30.4 percent, but that still leaves an Unfilled Gap of 26.5
percent, or $5.9 billion. The consequences of the Unfilled Gap for ALICE households are
discussed in Section VI.
The total annual public and private spending on Oregon households below the ALICE
Threshold, which includes families in poverty, is $6.8 billion (Figure 33), equal to 3 percent
of Oregons $204 billion Gross Domestic Product (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2014).
That spending includes several types of assistance:
percent
Government programs spend $632 million, or 2.8 percent
Cash public assistance delivers $877 million, adding another 3.9 percent
Nonprofit programs spend $463 million, or 2.1 percent
74
Figure 33.
Aggregate Resources
to Reach
the
ALICE
Fig 33 Aggregate
Resources
to Reach
ALICE Threshold,
Threshold 2013 OR Oregon, 2013
Government
Programs
2.8%
Nonprofits
2.1%
Cash Public
Assistance
3.9%
Health Care
21.6%
Unfilled Gap
26.5%
Income
43.1%
Total = $22.2 Billion
in Oregon, $4.8 billion, or 71 percent of all spending. This figure includes federal grants
for Medicaid, the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Hospital Charity Care;
community benefits provided by Oregon hospitals (Office of Management and Budget, 2014;
NASBO, 2014; NCCS Data Web Report Builder, 2010). Health care is separated from other
public spending because it has become such a large category and is a different type of
spending.
Outside of health
care, Cash Public
Assistance and
Government
Programs comprise
the remainder of
public spending
on low-income
families.
Social services are the largest category, spending $823 million on Temporary
Education spending is $74 million. Only programs that help children meet their basic
needs or are necessary to enable their parents to work are included. They are Head
Start, Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Education, the Rural and LowIncome Schools Program, and Homeless Children and Youth Education. Though
75
remainder of public spending on low-income families. Breaking down this spending by
federal and state sources provides additional insights. Federally funded programs for Oregon
households below the ALICE Threshold total $1.4 billion and are the second-largest source
(Office of Management and Budget, 2014). As in Idaho, the federal programs fall into four
categories:

Children (WIC).
Grants (CDBG).
Oregon state government assistance for households below the ALICE Threshold (excluding
health care) totals $74 million and accounts for 1.1 percent of assistance to the states lowincome households. This category includes state matching grants for public assistance such
as TANF and other cash benefits, as reported by the National Association of State Budget
Officers (NASBO, 2014).
organizations in Oregon is $463 million, or 7 percent of assistance to households below
the ALICE Threshold. Although many nonprofits also receive government funding to deliver
programs, the $463 million figure does not include government grants or user fees (NCCS
Data Web Report Builder, 2010). Most of the $463 million is raised by the nonprofits from
The total annual

income of
poverty-level and
ALICE households
in Washington is
$14.2 billion, which
includes wages and
Social Security. This
is only 42 percent of
the amount needed
just to reach the
ALICE Threshold
of $33.8 billion
statewide.
Income Assessment for Washington

Washington ALICE Threshold Earned Income and Assistance = Unfilled Gap
$33.8 billion
$25.9 billion
= $7.9 billion
The total annual income of poverty-level and ALICE households in Washington is $14.2
billion, which includes wages and Social Security. This is only 42 percent of the amount
nonprofit assistance makes up an additional 34.7 percent, but that still leaves an Unfilled Gap
of 23.3 percent, or $7.9 billion. The consequences of the Unfilled Gap for ALICE households
are discussed in Section VI.
The total annual public and private spending on Washington households below the ALICE
Threshold, which includes families in poverty, is $11.7 billion (Figure 34), equal to 3 percent
of Washingtons $407 billion Gross Domestic Product (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,
2014). That spending includes several types of assistance:
percent
Government programs spend $1.1 billion, or 3.4 percent
Cash public assistance delivers $1.7 billion, adding another 4.9 percent
Nonprofit programs spend $1.8 billion, or 5.2 percent
76
Figure 34.
Aggregate Resources to Reach the ALICE Threshold, Washington, 2013
Government
Programs
3.4%
Cash Public
Assistance
4.9%
Health Care
21.2%
Unfilled Gap
23.3%
Nonprofits
5.2%
Income
42%
Total = $33.8 Billion

in Washington, $7.1 billion, or 61 percent of all spending. This figure includes federal grants
for Medicaid, the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Hospital Charity Care;
community benefits provided by Washington hospitals (Office of Management and Budget,
2014; NASBO, 2014; NCCS Data Web Report Builder, 2010). Health care is separated from
other public spending because it has become such a large category and is a different type of
spending.
Outside of health
care, Cash Public
Assistance and
Government
Programs comprise
the remainder of
public spending
on low-income
families.
remainder of public spending on low-income families. Breaking down this spending by federal
and state sources provides additional insights. Federally funded programs for Washington
households below the ALICE Threshold total $2.7 billion and are the second-largest source
(Office of Management and Budget, 2014).
Social services are the largest category, spending $1.56 billion on Temporary
Education spending is $123 million. Only programs that help children meet their
basic needs or are necessary to enable their parents to work are included. They are
Head Start, Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Education, the Rural and
Low-Income Schools Program, and Homeless Children and Youth Education. Though
77
As in Idaho and Oregon, the federal programs in Washington fall into four categories:

Children (WIC).
Grants (CDBG).
Washington state government assistance for households below the ALICE Threshold
(excluding health care) totals $125 million and accounts for 1.1 percent of assistance to
the states low-income households. This category includes state matching grants for public
assistance such as TANF and other cash benefits, as reported by the National Association of
State Budget Officers (NASBO, 2014).
organizations in Washington is $1.77 billion, or 15 percent of assistance to households below
the ALICE Threshold. Although many nonprofits also receive government funding to deliver
programs, the $1.77 billion figure does not include government grants or user fees (NCCS
Data Web Report Builder, 2010). Most of the $1.77 billion is raised by the nonprofits from
Public and Nonprofit Spending Per Household
When looking at
When looking at each household (not individuals) below the ALICE Threshold across the
each household (not Pacific Northwest, the average benefit from federal and state government and nonprofit
individuals) below sources (excluding health care) varies between the three states. Average benefits were
lowest in Idaho at $3,154 per household, and similar in Oregon at $3,418, but more than
the ALICE Threshold double in Washington at $7,754. On average, each household in Idaho also received $8,254
across the Pacific in health care resources from government and hospitals in 2013, and a similar amount in
Oregon at $8,319. Again, the total was higher in Washington at $12,152 per household
Northwest, the
in health care assistance. In total, the average household below the ALICE Threshold in
average benefit
Idaho received a total of $11,408 in cash and services, shared between all members of the
household and spread throughout 2013. The average household in Oregon received a similar
from federal and
amount. $11,737, while the average household in Washington received $19,906 (Figure 35).
state government
Figure 35.
and nonprofit
sources (excluding Public Assistance per Household below the ALICE Threshold, Pacific
health care) varies Northwest, 2013
between the three
HEALTH ASSISTANCE
ASSISTANCE
TOTAL ASSISTANCE
ONLY
EXCLUDING HEALTH
states.
Idaho
$8,254
$3,154
$11,408
Oregon
$8,319
$3,418
$11,737
Washington
$12,152
$7,754
$19,906
Association of State Budget Officers, 2014; NCCS Data Web Report Builder, 2010; American Community Survey, 2013; and ALICE
Threshold, 2013
78
Despite the seemingly large amounts of welfare and health care spending nationwide,
this spending in fact makes up a small percentage of GDP, and it falls well short of what
is necessary to provide financial stability for a family (Weaver, 2009). According to Wider
Opportunities for Women (WOW), a Washington, D.C.-based research organization, relying
on a basic assistance package means that a three-person family earns minimum wage,
leaving them 50 percent short for basic household expenses in almost every state. WOW
also notes that a worker earning slightly more than the federal minimum wage may not be
much closer to economic security than those earning below it, as those who earn above
minimum wage lose eligibility for many benefits (WOW, 2011).
Without public and nonprofit spending, however, ALICE households would face great
hardship; many more would be qualified as living below the FPL, particularly in the wake of
the Great Recession. Nationally, federal spending per capita grew significantly during the
Recession, especially in SNAP, EITC, Unemployment Insurance, and Medicaid programs.
This growth was spread across demographic groups, including single-parent families, twoparent families, and families with and without children (Moffitt, 2013).
Health Care Considerations

Health care assistance to households requires special consideration. Many studies have
found that a few people use a disproportionately large share of health care, while the rest use
small amounts (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010; Silletti, 2005;
Culhane, Park, and Metraux, 2011). So while Idaho households below the ALICE Threshold,
for example, receive an average of $8,254 in health care assistance, it is likely that many
ALICE and poverty households actually receive far less. A very few probably receive much
larger amounts of health care assistance, as in Malcolm Gladwells famous anecdote about
the homeless man who cost the system a million dollars a year at the emergency room
(Gladwell, 2006). For those households that do not receive health care assistance, however,
the Unfilled Gap goes up to 51 percent in Idaho (the average Unfilled Gap of 28 percent plus
23 percent from the health care assistance they did not receive), 48 percent in Oregon, and
45 percent in Washington.
Without public and

nonprofit spending,
however, ALICE
households would
face great hardship;
many more would
be qualified as
living below the FPL,
particularly in the
wake of the Great
Recession.
Another source of relief for many ALICE households is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
In fact, 136,000 ALICE and poverty-level households in Idaho received an aggregate $303
million for an average refund of $2,221 to reduce their taxes through the federal EITC in
2012. In Oregon, 283,000 ALICE and poverty-level households received an aggregate $574
million for an average refund of $2,025; and in Washington, 453,000 ALICE and poverty-level
households received an aggregate $941 million for an average refund of $2,080 (IRS. 2013).
While some households actually receive a refund, most benefit only from a reduction in taxes
owed. Since the net refund amount in all Pacific Northwest states is positive for all income
brackets, the EITC contribution to the ALICE Unfilled Gap is not included as government
assistance in the calculations above (IRS, 2013). In other words, a lower tax bill is considered
a reduction in household expenses.
EITC filing data provides another window into households with income below the ALICE
Threshold. In 2012, 23 percent of tax filers in Idaho were eligible for EITC, and of those,
36 percent were married households, 42 percent were single heads of households, and 21
percent were single adults. The median Adjusted Gross Income was $15,171. In terms of
industries that employ EITC-eligible workers, the most common was accommodation/food
services, followed by retail trade, health care, construction, and manufacturing.
79
Earned Income Tax Credit
In Oregon, where 20 percent of tax filers were eligible for EITC, 27 percent were married
households, 39 percent were single heads of households, and 33 percent were single
adults. The median Adjusted Gross Income was $12,122. In terms of industries that employ
EITC-eligible workers, the most common was retail trade, followed by accommodation/food
services, health care, manufacturing, and administrative services.
While government
and nonprofit
spending on
households with
income below the
ALICE Threshold is
not enough to lift
all households into
financial stability, it
makes a significant
difference for many
ALICE families.
80
And in Washington, where 16 percent of tax filers were eligible for EITC, 26 percent were
married households, 45 percent were single heads of households, and 29 percent were
single adults. The median Adjusted Gross Income was $13,133. Among industries that
employ EITC-eligible workers, the most common was retail trade, followed by health care,
accommodation/food services, administrative services, and manufacturing (Brookings,
2012).
The National Context

While government and nonprofit spending on households with income below the ALICE
Threshold is not enough to lift all households into financial stability (Ben-Shalom, Moffitt, and
Scholz, 2012; Shaefer and Edin, 2013), it makes a significant difference for many ALICE
families. In fact, without it, their situation would be much worse. Programs like SNAP, the
EITC and CTC, and Medicaid provide a critical safety net for basic household well-being and
enable many families to work (Sherman, Trisi, and Parrott, 2013; Grogger, 2013; Dowd and
Horowitz, 2011; Rosenbaum, 2013).
Families in a wide range of economic circumstances access public assistance, especially in
the wake of the Great Recession. Findings from the The Pew Charitable Trusts Economic
Mobility Project, a national survey of working-age families from 1999 to 2012, show that
families facing unemployment and other financial hardship during the Great Recession
turned to government, nonprofit, and private institutional resources as a safety net. More
than two of every three families interviewed drew on one or more of these institutional
resources, receiving help in categories as varied as income, food, health care, education
and training, housing and utility assistance, and counseling. Many had never depended on
social welfare programs before and were surprised to find themselves in need (The Pew
Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project, 2013).
V. WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC

CONDITIONS FOR ALICE
HOUSEHOLDS IN THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST?
Measure 4 The Economic Viability Dashboard
AT-A-GLANCE: SECTION V
The Economic Viability Dashboard incorporates three Indices Housing
Affordability, Job Opportunities, and Community Resources for each county.
Only 6 counties in the Pacific Northwest all in Idaho or Washington scored in
the highest third in all three Indices of the Dashboard. One county in Idaho and one
in Oregon scored in the lowest third in all three Indices.
The average affordable housing gap in the Pacific Northwest is an 11 percent
shortage in rental housing stock.
Housing burdened: on average in Idaho, 24 percent of residents spend more than
30 percent of their income on housing, as do 31 percent in Oregon and 28 percent
in Washington.
The average annual real estate tax in the Pacific Northwest is $1,621, but there is
wide variation across counties.
There is wide variation in job opportunities across the Pacific Northwest and within
each state; 53 percent of Idaho counties have good scores for job opportunities,
while 44 percent of Oregon counties and 36 percent of Washington counties report
poor scores.
In most counties in the Pacific Northwest, the 2013 unemployment rate was above
the national average of 8.4 percent, ranging from a low of 4 percent to a high of 18
percent.
Preschool enrollment, a marker of education resources in each county, varies
widely: only 6 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled in Shoshone County, Idaho,
while 65 percent are enrolled in Idaho County, Idaho.
Of non-seniors with annual income under 200 percent of the FPL, 22 percent in
Oregon, 26 percent in Idaho, and 27 percent in Washington did not have health
insurance in 2013.
The percent of residents who voted in the Pacific Northwest is below the national
average of 58 percent, with 40 percent voting in Idaho, 52 percent voting in Oregon,
and 45 percent voting in Washington in 2012.
81
The average wage for a new hire in the Pacific Northwest is $2,057 per month, but
there is significant variation among counties.
Local economic conditions largely determine how many households in a county or state fall
below the ALICE Threshold. These conditions also determine how difficult it is to survive
without sufficient income and assets to afford basic household necessities.
In order to understand the challenges that the ALICE population faces in the Pacific
Northwest, however, it is essential to recognize that the regions overall economic conditions
do not impact all socio-economic and geographic groups in the same way. For example,
the Pacific Northwests relatively high GDP obscures the lack of high-skilled jobs in many
counties.
By contrast, county unemployment statistics clearly reveal where there are not enough
jobs. Yet having a job is only part of the economic landscape for ALICE households. The
full picture requires an understanding of the types of jobs available and their wages, as well
as the cost of basic living expenses and the level of community resources available in each
county.
ECONOMIC VIABILITY DASHBOARD
Local economic
conditions largely
determine how
many households
in a county or state
fall below the ALICE
Threshold.
82
The Economic Viability Dashboard is a tool that presents three parallel indices of
economic conditions that ALICE households face in the Pacific Northwest: Housing
Affordability, Job Opportunities, and Community Resources. The Dashboard reports
how each county performs on the three dimensions; for each Index, a county receives
a score between 1 (worst economic conditions for ALICE) and 100 (best economic
conditions). The ideal for a county is to have good conditions in all three indices. The
Indices provide the means to compare counties in the Pacific Northwest and also to see
changes over time.
The Economic Viability Dashboard provides a window directly into the economic conditions
that matter most to ALICE households. The Dashboard offers the means to better understand
why so many households struggle to achieve basic economic stability throughout the Pacific
Northwest. It also looks at why that struggle is harder in some parts of the region than in
others, offering a way to compare conditions across seemingly very different counties in
different states.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER INDICES

THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX
A project of the Social Science Research Council, this Index measures health (life expectancy), education (school
enrollment and the highest educational degree attained), and income (median personal earnings) for each state in
the U.S. Of all the states, Idaho ranks 42nd for social and economic development, driven primarily by the states
low education attainment, short life expectancy, and low median earnings. In contrast, Washington ranks 13th for
social and economic development, driven primarily by the states high education attainment, long life expectancy,
and high median earnings. Oregon ranks near the middle at 28th for social and economic development (Lewis and
Burd-Sharps, 2014).
BE THE CHANGES OPPORTUNITY INDEX

This Index measures the degree of opportunity now and in the future available to residents of each state based
on measurements of that states economic, educational, and community health. Idaho ranks 30th overall nationally
and scores slightly above average on the economy and community measures, while slightly below average on the
education measure. Oregon ranks 32 overall and scores slightly below average on the economy, education, and
community measures. And Washington ranks 22 overall and scores slightly above average on the economy and
community measures, while slightly below average on the education measure. This Index also breaks opportunity
scores down by county (Opportunity Nation, 2013).
THE INSTITUTION FOR SOCIAL AND POLICY STUDIES ECONOMIC SECURITY INDEX
This Index measures not conditions, but changes the size of drops in income or spikes in medical spending and
the corresponding financial insecurity level in each state. Idaho residents face more financial insecurity than the
national average, Oregon residents have about the national average, and Washington residents face less than
the national average. Like the national average, the scores in all three states have improved since 2010 (Hacker,
Huber, Nichols, Rehm and Craig, 2012).
THE GALLUP-HEALTHWAYS WELL-BEING INDEX

This Index provides a view of life at the state level in terms of overall well-being, life evaluation, emotional health,
physical health, healthy behavior, work environment, and feeling safe, satisfied, and optimistic within a community.
Overall, each of the three Pacific Northwest states has scored near the national average. Idaho scored slightly
lower than the average in terms of physical health and slightly higher in terms of emotional health and work
environment. Both Oregon and Washington scored slightly higher than the average in terms of physical health and
slightly lower in terms of emotional health and work environment (Gallup-Healthways, 2013).
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS (NAHB)/WELLS FARGO

HOUSING OPPORTUNITY INDEX
THE INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY INDEX

Developed by the Equality of Opportunity project at Harvard University, this Index focuses on metro areas,
measuring the upward mobility of children from low-income families. Of the 50 largest commuting zones, Seattle is
ranked 14th and Portland, Oregon is ranked 23rd in the probability that a child born to a family in the bottom quintile
of the national income distribution will ultimately reach the top quintile (Chetty, Hendren, Kline, and Saez, 2014).
THE HUMAN NEEDS INDEX

Developed by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and the Salvation Army, this Index is based
on the services that the Salvation Army provides (clothing, food, basic medical care, and shelter. Idaho ranked 16th,
Oregon ranked 41st, and Washington ranked 53rd nationally in the composite index of poverty-related need and the
impact of Salvation Army services in 2014 (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2015).
83
This Index measures the share of homes sold in a given area that would be affordable to a family earning the
local median income, based on standard mortgage underwriting criteria. The Pacific Northwests nine metro areas
rank from the 11th most affordable area in the nation (Pocatello, Idaho) to the 202nd (Seattle-Bellevue-Everett,
Washington) out of 225 metro areas (NAHB/Wells Fargo, 2015).
Economic Viability Dashboard Scores

The Dashboard results for each state are presented in Figures 36 to 38 and in the
accompanying maps. Index scores for each county range from a possible 1 (worst) to 100
(best); they are color coded by: poor = bottom third; fair = middle third; good = top third of
scores for each Index by county. While each Index measures the counties in all three states,
the results are color coded by state: Idaho counties are shown in blue, Oregon counties in
gold, and Washington counties in red. The methodology and sources are in Appendix F.
ALICE households have to navigate a range of variables, and the Economic Viability
Dashboard shows them clearly. A common challenge is to find job opportunities in the
same counties that are affordable for ALICE households as places to live. In addition, many
affordable counties do not offer key community resources such as access to quality schools,
high levels of health coverage, and the types of community engagement that create social
capital. The ideal locations are those that offer affordable housing, job opportunities, and high
levels of community resources.
For ALICE households, those locations are both most needed and hardest to find. The
Economic Viability Dashboard shows that only six (out of 103) counties in the Pacific
Northwest score in the highest third on all three Indices: Caribou and Nez Perce counties
in Idaho, and Garfield, Klickitat, and Lincoln counties in Washington. No counties in Oregon
received good scores in all three indices. At the other end of the spectrum, Madison County,
Idaho and Polk County, Oregon scored in the lowest third on all three Indices (Figures 36 to
38).
The ideal locations Figure 36.

are those that offer Economic Viability Dashboard, Idaho, 2013
affordable housing,
Housing
Job
job opportunities,
County
Affordability
Opportunities
and high levels
Ada County
good
good
of community
Adams County
good
poor
resources.
Bannock County
good
fair
For ALICE
Bear Lake County
good
fair
households, those
Benewah County
good
good
locations are both
Bingham County
good
good
most needed and
Blaine County
poor
good
hardest to find.
Boise County
fair
poor
good
good
poor
poor
fair
good
poor
poor
fair
poor
fair
Bonneville County
good
good
poor
Boundary County
fair
fair
poor
Butte County
good
good
fair
Camas County
poor
fair
poor
Canyon County
fair
fair
poor
Bonner County
84
Community
Resources
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
Caribou County
good
good
good
Cassia County
good
good
poor
Clark County
poor
poor
good
Clearwater County
good
fair
poor
Custer County
good
poor
poor
Elmore County
fair
good
fair
Franklin County
fair
good
poor
Fremont County
good
good
poor
Gem County
good
poor
fair
Gooding County
good
good
poor
Idaho County
good
good
good
fair
good
good
Jerome County
good
good
fair
Kootenai County
good
fair
fair
Latah County
poor
poor
fair
Lemhi County
good
poor
good
Lewis County
good
good
poor
Lincoln County
good
good
poor
Madison County
poor
poor
poor
Minidoka County
good
good
poor
Nez Perce County
good
good
good
Oneida County
good
good
fair
Owyhee County
fair
fair
poor
Payette County
good
poor
poor
Power County
good
good
fair
Shoshone County
good
fair
poor
Teton County
poor
poor
fair
Twin Falls County
good
fair
poor
Valley County
good
fair
good
fair
poor
fair
Jefferson County
Washington County
85
Housing
Affordability
County
Economic Viability Dashboard, Number of Good Scores, I daho, 2013

Number of "Good" scores
0
1
2
3
Boise
Sources and Methodology: See Appendix F
Figure 37.
Economic Viability Dashboard, Oregon, 2013
Housing
Affordability
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
fair
poor
good
Benton County
poor
poor
good
Clackamas County
poor
good
good
fair
poor
good
poor
fair
good
County
Baker County
Clatsop County
Columbia County
86
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
Coos County
fair
poor
good
Crook County
poor
poor
good
Curry County
poor
poor
good
Deschutes County
fair
fair
fair
Douglas County
fair
fair
fair
good
good
poor
Grant County
fair
poor
good
Harney County
fair
poor
good
poor
good
poor
Jackson County
fair
fair
good
Jefferson County
fair
poor
good
Josephine County
poor
poor
fair
Klamath County
fair
poor
fair
Lake County
fair
poor
poor
Lane County
poor
poor
fair
fair
poor
good
Linn County
poor
fair
fair
Malheur County
poor
poor
fair
Marion County
poor
fair
fair
Morrow County
fair
good
fair
Multnomah County
poor
fair
good
Polk County
poor
poor
poor
Sherman County
fair
fair
fair
Tillamook County
poor
fair
fair
Umatilla County
good
fair
poor
Union County
poor
good
good
Wallowa County
good
poor
good
Wasco County
poor
fair
good
Washington County
poor
good
good
Wheeler County
good
fair
good
Yamhill County
poor
fair
poor
Gilliam County
Hood River County
Lincoln County
87
Housing
Affordability
County
Economic Viability Dashboard, Number of Good Scores, Oregon, 2013
Portland
Number of
"Good" scores
0
1
2
Figure 38.
Economic Viability Dashboard, Washington, 2013
Housing
Affordability
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
Adams County
fair
fair
poor
Asotin County
fair
fair
good
Benton County
good
good
poor
Chelan County
fair
fair
fair
Clallam County
fair
fair
fair
poor
good
fair
Columbia County
fair
fair
poor
Cowlitz County
fair
fair
fair
Douglas County
poor
good
poor
Ferry County
good
poor
fair
Franklin County
poor
good
poor
Garfield County
good
good
good
Grant County
fair
fair
poor
Grays Harbor County
fair
poor
fair
Island County
poor
poor
good
Jefferson County
poor
poor
good
King County
poor
good
good
Kitsap County
poor
fair
good
County
Clark County
88
Housing
Affordability
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
Kittitas County
poor
poor
fair
Klickitat County
good
good
good
fair
poor
fair
Lincoln County
good
good
good
Mason County
fair
poor
poor
Okanogan County
fair
fair
fair
Pacific County
fair
poor
good
Pend Oreille County
fair
poor
good
Pierce County
poor
good
fair
San Juan County
poor
fair
good
Skagit County
poor
good
good
Skamania County
good
poor
good
Snohomish County
poor
good
fair
Spokane County
poor
fair
fair
Stevens County
fair
fair
good
Thurston County
poor
good
poor
Wahkiakum County
fair
poor
poor
Walla Walla County
fair
fair
fair
Whatcom County
poor
fair
fair
Whitman County
poor
poor
good
fair
fair
poor
County
Lewis County
Yakima County
Seattle
Number of
"Good" scores
0
1
2
3
89
Economic Viability Dashboard, Number of Good Scores, Washington, 2013
The three Indices are reviewed below. Each Index is comprised of three indicators.
THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY INDEX

Key Indicators: Affordable Housing Gap + Housing Burden + Real Estate Taxes
The more affordable housing is in a county, the easier it is for a household to be financially
stable. The three key indicators for the Housing Affordability Index in each county are the
affordable housing gap, housing burden, and real estate taxes.
In the Pacific Northwest, there is wide variation on Housing Affordability scores across the
region and within Idaho and Washington, though less so in Oregon (Figure 37). The least
affordable county in Idaho is Clark County with a score of 23 out of 100; the most affordable
is Caribou County with a score of 73. Similarly, in Washington, the least affordable county
is Franklin with a score of 28, and the most affordable is Garfield with a score of 70. In
Oregon, the least affordable county is Multnomah with a score of 23, and the most affordable
is Wheeler with a score of only 59. Even the most affordable counties are well below the
possible 100 points. In terms of the region, the most affordable counties are located in Idaho.
Of the least affordable counties, 45 percent are in Oregon and 40 percent are in Washington.
With the Pacific

Northwests metro
areas ranking
among the least
affordable in the
country, it is not
surprising that
many Pacific
Northwest
households are
housing burdened.
Affordable Housing Gap Indicator

The first key indicator in the Housing Affordability Index is the affordable housing gap. In a
given county, there is a difference between the total number of available renter and owner
units and the number that households below the ALICE Threshold can afford while spending
no more than one-third of their income on housing. This indicator measures that gap. It is
controlled for size by measuring the gap as a percent of the overall housing stock.
The larger the gap, the harder it is for households below the ALICE Threshold to find
affordable housing, and for this Index, the lower the score. The average affordable housing
gap in the Pacific Northwest is an 11 percent shortage in rental housing stock, but there is
large variation between counties. Lemhi County, Idaho has the lowest with no gap, while
Tillamook County, Oregon has a 37 percent shortage.
Housing Burden Indicator

The second key indicator in the Housing Affordability Index is the housing burden, defined
as housing costs that exceed 30 percent of income as defined by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). That standard is based on the premise established
in the United States Housing Act of 1937 that 30 percent of income was the most a family
could spend on housing and still afford other household necessities (Schwartz and Wilson,
2008).
90
With the Pacific Northwests metro areas ranking among the least affordable in the country,
it is not surprising that many Pacific Northwest households are housing burdened. In fact,
on average in Idaho, 24 percent of residents spend more than 30 percent of their income on
housing, as do 31 percent in Oregon and 28 percent in Washington. There is wide variation
across the region, with the highest housing burden in Clark County, Idaho at a rate of 76
percent; the lowest is 18 percent in Caribou County, Idaho (American Community Survey,
2013a). For the Housing Affordability Index, the housing burden is inversely related so that
the greater the housing burden, the less affordable the cost of living and, therefore, the lower
the Index score.
Real Estate Taxes Indicator

The third key indicator in the Housing Affordability Index is real estate taxes. While related
to housing cost, they also reflect a countys standard of living. The average annual real
estate tax in the Pacific Northwest is $1,621 but there is wide variation across the region.
Average annual real estate taxes are lowest in Custer County, Idaho at $525 and highest in
King County, Washington at $3,766 (American Community Survey, 2013). For the Housing
Affordability Index, real estate taxes are inversely related so that the higher the taxes, the
harder it is to support a household and, therefore, the lower the Index score.
THE JOB OPPORTUNITIES INDEX

Key Indicators: Income Distribution + Unemployment Rate + New Hire Wages
The Job Opportunities Index focuses on job opportunities for the population in general and
for households living below the ALICE Threshold in particular. The key indicators for job
opportunities are income distribution, the unemployment rate, and new hire wages. The more
job opportunities there are in a county, the more likely a household is to be financially stable.
There is wide variation in job opportunities across the Pacific Northwest and within each
state. The fewest job opportunities in Idaho are in Clark County, with a score of 31, and
the most are in Power County, with a score of 78. Similarly, in Oregon, Josephine County
had the lowest score at 34, while Washington County had the highest score at 66. And in
Washington, Whitman County had the lowest score at 38, compared to the highest at 68 in
King County. The Index also enables comparisons across the region: for example, 53 percent
of Idaho counties have good scores for job opportunities, while 44 percent of Oregon
counties and 36 percent of Washington counties report poor scores for the category.
The key indicators

for job opportunities
are income
distribution, the
unemployment
rate, and new hire
wages. The more job
opportunities there
are in a county,
the more likely a
household is to be
financially stable.
The first indicator in the Job Opportunities Index is income distribution as measured by the
share of income for the lowest two quintiles. The more evenly income is distributed across
the quintiles, the greater the possibility ALICE households have to achieve the countys
median income, and therefore the higher the Index score. In the Pacific Northwest, income
is most unequal in Whitman County, Washington, where the lowest two quintiles earn only
8 percent of the income. The highest percentage these two quintiles earn is 20 percent in
Power County, Idaho (American Community Survey, 2013).
Unemployment Rate Indicator

The second indicator in the Job Opportunities Index is the unemployment rate. Having a job
is obviously crucial to financial stability; the higher the unemployment level in a given region,
the fewer opportunities there are for earning income, and therefore the lower the Index
score. In most counties in the Pacific Northwest, the 2013 unemployment rate was above the
national average of 8.4 percent. The lowest rate was in Oneida County, Idaho, at 4 percent,
and the highest was above 18 percent in Curry County, Oregon (American Community
Survey, 2013b)
91
Income Distribution Indicator
New Hire Wages Indicator

The third indicator in the Job Opportunities Index is the average wage for new hires as
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). While having a job is essential, having a job
with a salary high enough to afford the cost of living is also important. This indicator seeks
to capture the types of jobs that are available in each county. The higher the wage for new
hires, the greater the contribution employment can make to household income and, therefore,
the higher the Index score. The average wage for a new hire in the Pacific Northwest is
$2,057 per month according to the U.S. Census Quarterly Workforce Indicators, but there
is wide variation between counties. At the low end of the spectrum is Oneida County, Idaho,
where new hires earn $1,232 per month. At the top of the spectrum, new hires in Washington
County, Oregon can expect to earn more than quadruple that at $5,883 per month. This
degree of variation indicates the very different kinds of jobs and/or wage levels available in
different locations throughout the region (U.S. Census, 2013).
THE COMMUNITY RESOURCES INDEX

Key Indicators: Education Resources + Health Resources + Social Capital
Providing public
education is a
fundamental
American value,
and education is
widely regarded as
a means to achieve
economic success.
92
The Community Resources Index measures the education, health, and social resources
that are available in a community, resources that are fundamental prerequisites to being
able to work and raise a family. The Index focuses on resources that can make a difference
in the financial stability of ALICE households in both the short and long terms. It also looks
at resources that reflect on a specific locality, rather than those that are available in all
communities across the country.
In the Pacific Northwest, there was less variation across counties in Community Resources
than in the other Indices. The county scores for Community Resources range from a low of
42 in Adams County, Idaho to a high of 69 in Benton County, Oregon.
Education Resources Indicator

The first indicator in the Community Resources Index reflects the level of education
resources in each county. Providing public education is a fundamental American value, and
education is widely regarded as a means to achieve economic success. Quality learning
experiences have social and economic benefits for children, parents, employers, and society
as a whole, now and in the future. Early learning in particular enables young children to gain
skills necessary for success in kindergarten and beyond. In addition, it enables parents to
work, which enhances the familys current and future earning potential. For these reasons,
the quality of education available to low-income children could be one of the most important
determinants of their future. As a proxy for the level of education resources in a county,
the Index uses the percent of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in pre/nursery school (American
Community Survey, 2013c). The higher the percentage of the population enrolled in pre/
nursery school, the higher the Index score.
The average percent of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in pre/nursery school in the Pacific
Northwest is 36 percent, but there is wide variation between counties. Only 6 percent of
3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled in pre/nursery school in Shoshone County, Idaho, while
65 percent are enrolled in Idaho County, Idaho. This extreme variation indicates that there
are very different policies and resources devoted to early childhood education in different
locations.
Health Resources Indicator

The second indicator in the Community Resources Index reflects the level of health
resources in each county. Health insurance is especially important for people living below
the ALICE Threshold who earn more than 133 percent of the FPL, the qualification level for
Medicaid. They do not have the resources to pay for a health emergency, and going forward
may not be able to afford the high deductibles of the lowest cost plans offered through the
Affordable Care Act. As a proxy for the level of health resources in a county, the Index uses
percent of the population with health insurance. The higher the rate of health insurance, the
higher the Index score.
The level of health insurance coverage in the Pacific Northwest decreased slightly over the
last two decades. In Idaho, coverage decreased from 86 percent in 1994 to 83.8 percent
in 2013; in Oregon, from 86.9 percent in 1994 to 85.3 percent in 2013; and in Washington,
from 87.1 percent in 1994 to 86 percent in 2013 (U.S. Census, 1994 and 2013). However,
coverage rates vary widely across the region today: the county with the lowest health
insurance coverage rate is Clark County, Idaho with 56 percent, and the highest is Whitman
County, Washington with 90 percent (American Community Survey, 2013).
Social Capital Indicator

The third indicator reflects the level of social capital in each county. Communities with
engaged citizens build the social capital necessary to mobilize resources, improve
quality of life and resolve conflict. The greater the community engagement, the more
the communitys activities reflect the populations values (Putnam, 1995; National Task
Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012; Saguaro Seminar on Civic
Engagement in America, 2000). Participating in electoral and political processes, such as
voting, campaigning, attending rallies and protests, contacting officials or serving on local
boards, is one aspect of community engagement. Broader community engagement includes
volunteering and contributing with religious, educational, neighborhood, and community
organizations.
Participating
in electoral and
political processes,
such as voting,
campaigning,
attending rallies
and protests,
contacting officials
or serving on
local boards,
is one aspect
of community
engagement.
As a proxy for the level of social capital in a county, the Index uses one of the longeststanding indicators of community engagement: the percent of the adult population who voted
in the most recent national election (U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2014; Hoopes
Halpin, Holzer, Jett, Piotrowski, and Van Ryzin, 2012). The higher the proportion of the
total population (taking into account the impact of noncitizens) that voted, the greater the
community engagement and ability to build social capital in the community, and therefore, the
higher the Index score.
The percent of residents who voted in the Pacific Northwest is below the national average
of 58 percent, with 40 percent voting in Idaho, 52 percent voting in Oregon, and 45 percent
voting in Washington in 2012. There is also great variation across the region: in Madison
County, Idaho, only 18 percent of residents voted, while 56 percent voted in Wheeler County,
Oregon (U.S. Census, 2013; American Community Survey, 2013).
93
Though health coverage rates might seem to be correlated with higher income, low-income
households are in fact roughly as likely as high-income households to have insurance in the
Pacific Northwest, even apart from eligibility for Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance
Program (CHIP). In fact, for individuals under the age of 64 with annual income under 200
percent of the FPL, 22 percent in Oregon, 26 percent in Idaho, and 27 percent in Washington
did not have health insurance in 2013, compared to 26 percent of the total non-elderly U.S.
population (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012).
CHANGES OVER TIME

The Economic Viability Dashboard enables comparisons over time for the three dimensions
that it measures. To visualize changes over time, the average scores for all counties in the
Pacific Northwest on each Index are presented in Figure 39. With 2010 as the baseline
for the each Index, the score for each is 50. Scores in 2007 or 2013 that are above 50
show better conditions than in 2010; scores below that level represent worse conditions.
The change in Dashboard scores from 2007 to 2013 provides a striking picture of
conditions worsening in the Pacific Northwest over the course of the Great Recession.
From 2007 to 2010, scores for Housing Affordability fell by one-third while Job Opportunities
fell by 15 percent and Community Resources fell by 4 percent. In the three years after the
technical end of the Great Recession, Housing Affordability continued to worsen by another
2 percent. Job Opportunities increased by 1 percent, and Community Resources showed the
most improvement, increasing 11 percent. (See Appendix F for score results for each county,
as well as sources and calculations.)
Average Index Score
From 2007 to 2010,

scores for Housing
Affordability fell
Figure 39.
by one-third while
Economic Viability Dashboard, Pacific Northwest, 2007 to 2013
Job Opportunities
fell by 15 percent
and Community
Resources fell by
4 percent.
52
50
55
Community Resources
58
Job Opportunities
50
50
50
49
2010
2013
74
2007
Source: See Appendix F.
94
Housing Affordability
VI. THE CONSEQUENCES OF

INSUFFICIENT HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
When households face difficult economic conditions and cannot afford basic necessities,
they are forced to make difficult choices and take risks. When the overall economic climate
worsens, as it did from 2007 to 2010 during the Great Recession, or whenever families are
faced with emergencies and unexpected short-term expenses, more households are forced
to make even harder trade-offs. With so many of the Pacific Northwests ALICE households
having depleted their savings and still having trouble finding higher-wage jobs three years
after the end of the Recession, this section reviews the strategies they use to survive.
For ALICE households, difficult economic conditions create specific problems in the areas of
housing, child care and education, food, health and health care, and transportation, as well
as income and savings. Yet what is not always acknowledged is that these problems
have consequences not just for ALICE households, but for their broader communities
as well.
The choices that ALICE households are forced to make often include skipping health care,
accredited child care, healthy food, or car insurance. While these savings have direct
impacts on the health, safety, and future of these households, their wider effects can include
reducing the Pacific Northwests economic productivity and raising insurance premiums and
taxes for everyone (Figure 40).
When households
face difficult
economic conditions
and cannot afford
basic necessities,
they are forced
to make difficult
choices and take
risks.
Figure 40.
Consequences of Households Living Below the ALICE Threshold in the
Pacific Northwest
Impact on ALICE
Impact on Community
HOUSING
Worker stressed, late, and/or
absent from job less productive
Move farther away from job
Longer commute; costs

increase; less time for other
activities
More traffic on road; workers late

to job
Homeless
Disruption to job, family,

school, etc.
Costs for homeless shelters, foster

care system, health care
Substandard child care
Safety and learning risks;

health risks; limited future
employment opportunity
Future burden on education and

social services; less productive
worker
No child care
One parent cannot work;

Future burden on education system
forgoing immediate income and and other social services
future promotions
Substandard public
education
Learning risks; limited earning

potential/mobility; limited
career opportunity
Stressed parents; future burden on

social services
95
Inconvenience; health and

Live in substandard housing safety risks; increased
maintenance costs
FOOD
Less healthy
Poor health; obesity
Less productive worker/student;

future burden on health care
system
Not enough
Poor daily functioning
Even less productive; future burden

on social services and health care
system
TRANSPORTATION
Old car
Unreliable transportation;
risk of accidents; increased
maintenance costs

absent from job less productive
No insurance/registration
Risk of fine; accident liability;

risk of license being revoked
Higher insurance premiums; unsafe

vehicles on the road
Less time for other activities;

more costly
More traffic on road; workers late

to job; greater burden on road
maintenance services
Limited employment
opportunities and access to
health care/child care
Reduced economic productivity;

higher taxes for specialized public
transportation; greater burden on
emergency vehicles
Forgo preventative health care;

more out-of-pocket expense
Workers report to job sick;

spread illness; less productive;
absenteeism
Forgo preventative health care;

use emergency room for
non-emergency care
Higher insurance premiums for

all to fill the gap; more expensive
health costs
Low wages
Longer work hours; pressure

on other family members to
work (drop out of school); no
savings

absent from job less productive;
higher taxes to fill the gap
No wages
Cost of looking for work and

finding social services
Less productive society; higher

taxes to fill the gap
Mental stress; crises; risk

taking; use costly alternative
financial systems to bridge
gaps
More workers facing crisis; unstable

workforce; community disruption
Crises spiral quickly, leading to

homelessness, hunger, illness
Costs for homeless shelters, foster

care system, emergency health
care
Long commute
No car

Underinsured
Finding convenient
housing that
is affordable is
challenging in many
parts of the Pacific
Northwest.
No insurance
INCOME
SAVINGS
Minimal Savings
No savings
Suggested reference: United Way ALICE Report Pacific Northwest, 2015
HOUSING
Housing is the cornerstone of financial stability, and as such, its relatively high cost often
forces ALICE households into difficult situations. Homelessness is the worst possible
outcome when ALICE cannot afford basic housing, but there are lesser consequences that
still take a toll, including excessive spending on housing, living far from work, or living in
substandard units. Finding convenient housing that is affordable is challenging in many parts
of the Pacific Northwest. The growing population and changing demographics have increased
the demand for an already tight supply of smaller, low-cost housing units, especially rental
units. In addition, the housing crisis in the Pacific Northwest cost many homeowners the
equity in their homes and even forced some into foreclosure.
96
While the cost of housing varies across the region, it remains the most expensive budget
item in all counties for all households except those with two or more children in child care.
This is clear from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo Housing
Opportunity Index, which ranks homeownership affordability. In the Pacific Northwest,
Pocatello, Idaho was the 11th most affordable area in the nation (out of 225) and 2nd in the
West (out of 68). On the other end of the spectrum, the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, Washington
metro area is one of the least affordable metro areas in the nation, ranked 202nd out of 225
(and 54th out of 68 in the West), and Bend, Oregon ranks in between at 196th nationally and
50th in the West (NAHB/Wells Fargo, 2015) (Figure 41).
Figure 41.
NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index for Pacific Northwest Metro
Areas, 2015
Affordability Rank
METRO AREA
REGIONAL RANKING
NATIONAL RANKING
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA
54
202
Bend, OR
50
196
Medford, OR
48
192
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
47
190
Boise City-Nampa, ID
35
161
Eugene-Springfield, OR
33
157
Bellingham, WA
29
149
Mount Vernon-Anacortes, WA
27
145
Corvallis, OR
20
129
Salem, OR
19
127
Bremerton-Silverdale, WA
18
120
Tacoma, WA
14
103
Spokane, WA
62
Olympia, WA
50
Pocatello, ID
11
While the cost

of housing varies
across the region,
it remains the most
expensive budget
item in all counties
for all households
except those with
two or more children
in child care.
Affordability has changed over time, with the median house price in 2013 lower than in 2007
in all metro regions across the Pacific Northwest. The largest drop in house prices from 2007
to 2010 was 42 percent in Bend, Oregon, and the smallest was 9 percent in Bellingham,
Washington. The largest drop for the 2007 to 2013 period was 31 percent in Pocatello,
Idaho. Median house prices increased in all metro regions from 2010 to 2013 but not enough
to recoup to 2007 levels. The notable exceptions were Bremerton-Silverdale and Tacoma
in Washington, which experienced 5 and 4 percent drops, respectively, from 2010 to 2013
(NAHB/Wells Fargo, 2015).
97
Source: NAHB/Wells Fargo, 2015
Many housing units cost less because they are in undesirable locations, lack basic kitchen
or bath facilities, or are in need of repair. Low-cost housing units are often in areas with
high crime rates, run-down infrastructure, no public transportation, or long distances from
grocery stores, public services, and other necessities. Harvard Universitys Joint Center for
Housing Studies estimates that low-income households that spend 30 percent or less of their
income on housing spend on average $100 per month more on transportation than those that
allocate over half their income to housing (Belsky, Goodman, and Drew, 2005).
The Pacific Northwests housing stock is somewhat younger than the national average; 21
percent of Idaho housing units were built before 1960, as were 26 percent in Oregon and 24
percent in Washington, compared to the U.S. average of 30 percent. The oldest units, those
built before 1940, account for approximately 10 percent of the regions housing stock, while
nationally, 20 percent of the housing stock is this old (American Community Survey, 2013).
With statewide vacancy rates of 13 percent in Idaho, 9.5 percent in Oregon, and 9.7 percent
in Washington, the Pacific Northwest sees problems of price reductions, poor housing
conditions, and abandoned properties (American Community Survey, 2013).
ALICE families in the Pacific Northwest often live in substandard units. Of the regions lowcost housing stock, 21,013 units lack complete plumbing facilities and 51,687 lack complete
kitchen facilities (American Community Survey, 2013). Low-rent units are also often those
that need maintenance, so ALICE families face the additional cost of upkeep as well as the
safety risks of do-it-yourself repairs, or possibly greater risks when repairs are not made. A
costly repair can threaten the safety or livelihood of an ALICE household.
When households
with income below
the ALICE Threshold
spend more than 35
percent of income
on rent and utility
costs, they are often
forced to forgo other
basics such as food,
medicine, child
care, or heat.
98
Another indicator of the lack of housing affordability in the region is the extent to which
households are housing burdened. As discussed in Section V, 24 percent of Idaho residents
spend more than 35 percent of their income on housing, as do 31 percent in Oregon and 28
percent in Washington. According to the American Community Survey, owners and renters
with lower incomes are more likely to be housing burdened than those with higher incomes
(American Community Survey, 2012). When households with income below the ALICE
Threshold spend more than 35 percent of income on rent and utility costs, they are often
forced to forgo other basics such as food, medicine, child care, or heat (National Low Income
Housing Coalition (NLIHC), 2013).
Renters
ALICE households are as likely to be renters as owners in Idaho, where 48 percent of
households with income below the ALICE Threshold are renters, occupying 54 percent of
all rental units. In Oregon and Washington, ALICE households are more likely to be renters:
57 percent of households with income below the ALICE Threshold are renters in each
state, occupying 47 and 45 percent of all rental units, respectively. The housing bubble
and subsequent housing crisis led to an increase in the demand for rental housing in the
Pacific Northwest. The percent of households renting in Idaho increased from 27.9 percent
in 2007 to 30.6 percent in 2013; in Oregon, the increase was from 35.4 percent in 2007 to
39.2 percent in 2013; and in Washington, from 33.9 percent in 2007 to 38.1 percent in 2013
(American Community Survey, 2013).
Yet renting has distinct downsides. First, renters are more likely than owners to face an
extreme housing burden. In Idaho, 40 percent of renters spend more than 35 percent of their
income on housing, as do 45 percent in Oregon and 42 percent in Washington (American
Community Survey, 2013). Second, while renting offers greater mobility, allowing people to
move more easily for work, and renters are more likely than homeowners to have moved
in the last few years, there are associated costs (American Community Survey, 2012). Any
move has a range of costs, from financial transition costs and reduced wages due to time off
from work to social start-up costs for new schools and the process of becoming invested in a
new community. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, renters are not able to build equity in
a home.
Analysis of the housing stock in each county in the Pacific Northwest reveals that the current
stock does not match current needs. In Idaho there are approximately 97,000 renters with
income below the ALICE Threshold, yet there are fewer than 50,000 rental units, subsidized
and market rate, that ALICE and poverty households can afford without being housing
burdened (Figure 42). In other words, Idaho would need at least 47,000 more lower-cost
rental units 97 percent more than exist now to meet the demand of renters below the
ALICE Threshold. This assumes that all ALICE and poverty households are currently living in
rental units they can afford, but the number of households that are housing burdened reveals
that this is often not the case in the Pacific Northwest, and that gap figures of low-cost rental
units needed across the region are in fact low estimates.
Using a different methodology, the NLIHC estimates a shortage of 28,125 units in Idaho
that are affordable and available for extremely low-income renters, based on affordability to
residents earning less than 30 percent of the median income (NLIHC, 2015). Despite using
different parameters, both measures confirm the significant shortage of affordable rental units
in Idaho.
Figure 42.
Renters Below the ALICE Threshold vs. Rental Stock, Idaho, 2013
Fig 42 Renters Below AT vs Rental Stock PNW 2013 ID
200,000
180,228
180,000
131,057
All Other Rental
Units
Rental Units
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
Idaho would need

at least 47,000
more lower-cost
rental units 97
percent more than
exist now to meet
the demand of
renters below the
ALICE Threshold.
96,625
35,835
Market Rate
Affordable
80,000
60,000
40,000
13,336
Subsidized
Renters Below
ALICE Threshold
Affordable
Units
Rental Units
Source: American Community Survey, 2013 and the ALICE Threshold, 2013
In Oregon, there are approximately 280,000 renters with income below the ALICE Threshold,
yet there are fewer than 115,000 rental units that these households can afford without being
housing burdened (Figure 43). In other words, Oregon would need at least 165,000 more
lower-cost rental units 150 percent more than exist now -- to meet the demand of renters
below the ALICE Threshold. In comparison, the NLIHC estimates a shortage of 103,363
rental units in Oregon that are affordable and available for extremely low-income renters
(NLIHC, 2015).
99
20,000
Figure 43.
Renters Below the ALICE Threshold vs. Rental Stock, Oregon, 2013
700,000
Fig 43 Renters Below AT vs Rental Stock PNW 2013 OR
593,611
600,000
Rental Units
500,000
400,000
300,000
278,549
200,000
100,000
In Washington,
there are
approximately
455,000 renters
with income below
the ALICE Threshold
but fewer than
220,000 rental
units that these
households can
afford without being
housing burdened.
100
61,444
Market Rate
Affordable
481,323
All Other Rental
Units
50,844
Subsidized
Renters Below
ALICE Threshold
Affordable
Units
Rental Units
In Washington, there are approximately 455,000 renters with income below the ALICE
Threshold but fewer than 220,000 rental units that these households can afford without being
housing burdened (Figure 44). Washington would need at least 235,000 more lower-cost
rental units 105 percent more than exist now to meet the demand of renters below the
ALICE Threshold. These findings fit between two other measures of affordable housing in the
state, and all three confirm a significant shortage. The NLIHC estimates a shortage of
166,058 rental units in Washington that are affordable and available for extremely low-income
renters (NLIHC, 2015). And the Washington Department of Commerce estimates that there is
a shortage of 253,375 rental units for families with income below 30 percent of the Area
Median Income (AMI) (Washington Department of Commerce, 2015).
Figure 44.
Renters Below the ALICE Threshold vs. Rental Stock, Washington, 2013
Fig 44 Renters Below AT vs Rental Stock PNW 2013 WA
1,006,231
Rental Units
1,000,000
787,233
All Other Rental
Units
800,000
600,000
455,329
400,000
200,000
0
133,663
Market Rate
Affordable
Affordable
Units
85,335
Subsidized
Renters Below
ALICE Threshold
Rental Units
Subsidized housing units are an important source of housing that is affordable for ALICE
families. Of the 380,000 rental units that households with income below the ALICE Threshold
can afford across the region, approximately 40 percent are subsidized. In fact, the Pacific
Northwests affordable rental housing programs reached 230,942 households across the
region in 2013 (HUD, 2013). However, subsidized units account for only 8 percent of all
available rental units. This means that market rate units are a vital source of housing for
ALICE families. Yet because the cost of housing is so high in the Pacific Northwest, not
enough market rate rental units are affordable for ALICE households.
In the Pacific
Northwest, there are
more than 650,000
homeowners with
income below the
ALICE Threshold, yet
only 540,000 owner
units are affordable
to them (i.e., do not
consume more than
one-third of their
income).
Across the region, most renters continue to spend larger portions of their income on housing.
In Idaho, the estimated mean wage for an Idaho renter in 2013 was $13.24 per hour. At this
wage, according to NLIHC, in order to afford the Fair Market Rate (FMR) for a two-bedroom
apartment without becoming housing burdened, a renter must work 72 hours per week, 52
weeks per year. In Oregon, the estimated mean renter wage for the same type of apartment,
and working the same number of hours, was $16 per hour. And in Washington, things were
even tighter: the estimated mean renter wage was $18.58 per hour and the renter must work
80 hours per week (NLIHC, 2014).
Homeowners
In the Pacific Northwest, there are more than 650,000 homeowners with income below the
ALICE Threshold, yet only 540,000 owner units are affordable to them (i.e., do not consume
more than one-third of their income). Market rate affordability assumes a 30-year mortgage at
4 percent for 90 percent of the value of the house, plus real estate taxes. In other words, the
number of affordable owner units in the Pacific Northwest would have to increase by more
101
1,200,000
than 110,000 in order to meet existing demand. This assumes that all ALICE and poverty
households are currently living in units that they can afford, but the number of households
that are housing burdened reveals that owner units are not perfectly allocated by income in
the Pacific Northwest and that at least 110,000 additional low-cost owner units are needed.
This also assumes that the families had a down payment and could qualify for a mortgage.
ALICE families that own their homes are more likely than higher-income families to have a
sub-prime mortgage. Almost by definition, most sub-prime mortgages are sold to low-income
households, and now these households make up the majority of foreclosures. In 2013, Idaho
had 4,209 completed foreclosures, and a foreclosure inventory rate of 2 percent (foreclosures
as a percentage of all mortgaged homes). Oregon had 4,855 completed foreclosures,
and a foreclosure inventory rate of 2.9 percent; and Washington had 16,671 completed
foreclosures, and a foreclosure inventory rate of 2.3 percent. All three of these rates are high
compared to the historic nationwide percentage of delinquent borrowers, which is 1.1 percent
(Core Logic, 2013; Demarco, 2011).
The Pacific Northwests two largest metro areas are seeing some improvement in the
foreclosure market, but Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, Washington still faced a foreclosure
inventory of 1 percent and a serious delinquency rate of 2.5 percent in 2014, while the
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro metro area had a foreclosure inventory of 1.3 percent and a
serious delinquency rate of 3 percent (Clabaugh, 2015).
Ultimately, if an
ALICE household
cannot afford their
home or it becomes
too unsafe and
has to be vacated,
they can become
homeless. This
starts a downward
spiral of bad credit
and destabilized
work, school, and
family life.
102
For an ALICE household, a foreclosure not only results in the loss of a stable place to live
and an owners primary asset, but also reduces the owners credit rating, creating barriers to
future home purchases and rentals. With few or no other assets to cushion the impact, ALICE
households who have experienced foreclosure often have difficulty finding new housing
(Federal Reserve Board, 2008; Kingsley, Smith, and Price, 2009; Frame, 2010).
In addition, with the tightening of mortgage regulations, those who do not qualify look for
alternatives, which has led to an increased interest in the use of contract for deed or rentto-own mortgages. The need for such services is reflected in the growth of this industry
nationally (Anderson and Jaggia, 2008; Edelman, Zonta, and Gordon, 2015; Kusisto, 2015).
Homelessness
Ultimately, if an ALICE household cannot afford their home or it becomes too unsafe and
has to be vacated, they can become homeless. This starts a downward spiral of bad credit
and destabilized work, school, and family life. Some households move in with relatives,
threatening the stability of another household. Others move to public assistance housing and
homeless services, adding to government costs.
In Idaho in 2014 there were 2,104 homeless people, including 215 homeless veterans. The
states rate of homelessness of 129 per 100,000 population is much lower than the national
rate of 200 per 100,000. In Oregon in 2014, there were 12,164 homeless people, including
1,292 homeless veterans, for a rate of 306 per 100,000 population, much higher than the
national rate. And in Washington, there were 18,442 homeless people, including 1,433
homeless veterans, for a rate of 261 per 100,000 population. Overall, more than one-third
of the homeless in the Pacific Northwest are homeless as families (National Alliance to End
Homelessness, 2013; U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2014).
Broader Consequences for Housing in the Pacific Northwest

When ALICE families cannot afford safe housing near where they work, there are
consequences for the whole community. When workers pay more for housing, they have
less to spend on other goods and services in the community. They may not have enough
resources to maintain their homes, which impacts entire neighborhoods. If they are forced to
move, due to cost or foreclosure, that adds instability to their neighborhoods. And ultimately,
if they become homeless, there are additional costs that the wider community absorbs.
Future Prospects
The high cost of housing in the Pacific Northwest will continue to be a big drain on the
Household Survival Budget. Based on forecasted economic and demographic changes,
significantly more households will be in need of smaller, lower cost housing over the next
two decades, adding to the demand for additional affordable housing options. These trends
include the decline in the rate of homeownership (approximately 5 percentage points
down from 2007 to 2013 across the region), the decrease in household size, the flat level
of incomes for renters, and the changing demands of seniors as well as young workers
(Washington Department of Commerce, 2015; and Department of Social and Health
Services, 2014; Proehl, 2011; Lehner, 2013; Capital City Development Corp, 2015).
In addition, rental housing units especially those that are older and in poor condition
are also vulnerable to removal. Nationally, 5.6 percent of the rental stock was demolished
between 2001 and 2011, but the loss rate for units with rent under $400 per month (i.e., those
most affordable for ALICE households) was more than twice as high, at 12.8 percent (Joint
Center for Housing Studies, 2013). The removal of these units, as inexpensive and unsafe as
they may be, puts additional pressure on the remaining rental stock, increasing costs for all
renters.
Based on
forecasted economic
and demographic
changes,
significantly more
households will be
in need of smaller,
lower cost housing
over the next two
decades, adding
to the demand
for additional
affordable housing
options.
Homeownership continues to elude many workers. The most common reasons renters cite
for renting rather than owning a home are that they dont think they can afford the necessary
down payment (50 percent of respondents) or qualify for a mortgage (31 percent), according
to the Federal Reserves Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking in 2014
(Federal Reserve, 2015). Because homeownership has been the most common vehicle for
families to build savings, the shift towards renting and away from homeownership may leave
those families without the assets needed for retirement or education, or to draw upon in an
emergency. This, in turn, stands to increase the number of ALICE households in the future.
The ability to drastically change the housing stock in the Pacific Northwest is constrained
by geography, economics, and current zoning laws that limit the potential for new small or
low-cost housing units to be built in economically prosperous areas. Given this combination
of factors, unless the price for single-family homes on large lots decreases substantially
103
The evidence is clear that the cost of preventing homelessness is significantly less than
the cost of caring for a homeless family or returning them to a home one-sixth the cost,
according to the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. The National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) estimates that the
cost of public services for the homeless ranges from $19,000 per year for one person in
Denver, Colorado to over $40,000 per year in New York (NAEH, 2005 and 2010). And Philip
Mangano, former executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness,
reports that the cost of keeping people on the street ranges between $35,000 and $150,000
per person per year, while the cost of keeping formerly homeless people housed ranges from
$13,000 to $25,000 per person per year, based on data from 65 U.S. cities (Mangano, 2008).
or zoning laws are changed to allow for townhouses and multi-family units, many ALICE
households will continue to live farther away from their jobs, resulting in the associated
challenges and costs discussed below (Hasse, Reiser, and Pichacz, 2011; Prevost, 2013;
Capital City Development Corp, 2015; Washington Department of Commerce, 2015; Lehner,
2013).
Compounding the challenge of finding low-cost housing in the Seattle and Portland metro
areas is the fact that the ratio of median income to median house price has been moving
above the long term average since 2012 (Bertaud, 2013; The Economist, 2014). A future
collapse in the housing market would not only impact homeowners who stand to lose their
homes or their equity; it would also disrupt the entire state economy. Households with income
below the ALICE Threshold increased by 9 percent in the Pacific Northwest from 2007
through the Great Recession to 2013. With jobs coming back slowly and most job openings
still concentrated in low-wage jobs, these families have not been able to save, and they
will be less able to withstand the new economic downturn that another housing crisis would
precipitate.

The consequences
for a family of
not having child
care are twofold:
the child may not
gain pre-learning
skills necessary
for success in
kindergarten and
beyond, and one
parent has to forgo
work, limiting both
current income
and future earning
potential.
Education is one of the few ways ALICE families can get ahead in the long run. In the
short-term, it is a challenge to find quality, affordable child care, strong public schools, and
affordable higher education. As a result, ALICE families often forgo education opportunities,
with consequences both for their earning potential and for the development of human capital
in their community.
Quality, Affordable Child Care

Quality, affordable child care is one of the most important and most expensive budget
items for ALICE families. The consequences for a family of not having child care are twofold:
the child may not gain pre-learning skills necessary for success in kindergarten and beyond,
and one parent has to forgo work, limiting both current income and future earning potential.
As discussed in Section II, child care in the Pacific Northwest is often the most expensive
item in the Household Survival Budget. The average cost of registered home-based child
care is $476 per month for an infant in Idaho, $487 per month in Oregon and $660 per month
in Washington, and the cost for a 4-year-old is $426 per month in Idaho, $447 per month in
Oregon, and $563 per month in Washington. By comparison, the average cost of a licensed,
accredited child care center for an infant ranges from 6 percent more in Idaho to 43 percent
more in Oregon, and for a four-year-old from 8 percent more in Idaho to 26 percent more in
Oregon (based on analyses from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, the Oregon
Department of Health and Human Services, and Child Care Aware of Washington; see
Appendix C for sources).
In an attempt to save money, or because they lack other available child care options, ALICE
parents may use unlicensed, home-based child care or even rely on friends and neighbors.
Though unlicensed, home-based child care is less expensive, it is also not fully regulated,
so the safety, health, and learning quality of home-based care can vary greatly and are not
guaranteed (NACCRRA, 2013).
Some child care needs can be covered by publicly subsidized preschools, which provide
great savings to ALICE families. In the Pacific Northwest, only Oregon and Washington have
state-funded preschool programs. Oregons state preschool programs enroll 7,209 children,
104
and Oregon ranks 4th nationally in terms of spending per preschool student, at $8,471 per
year. In terms of quality, these programs scored 9 out of 10 in the National Institute for Early
Education Research (NIEER)s Quality Standards Checklist. Washingtons state preschool
programs enroll 8,741 children, and Washington ranked 8th nationally in terms of spending
per student, at $6,658 per year. These programs also scored 9 out of 10 on the Quality
Standards Checklist (NIEER, 2014).
The rate of enrollment in Pacific Northwest preschools is mixed. From 2011 to 2013, in Idaho,
only 32 percent of children age 3 to 4 attended preschool, as did only 40 percent in Oregon
and Washington all rates below the national average of 46 percent. The rates were even
lower for Hispanic or Latino children during that time period: in Idaho, only 20 percent of
Hispanic or Latino children age 3 to 4 attended preschool, while in Oregon that figure was 32
percent, and in Washington it was 27 percent (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2014).
However, attendance at preschool is highly related to income; children in households with
higher incomes are more likely to attend preschool. In each of the three Pacific Northwest
states, only 29 percent of children in households with income roughly below the ALICE
Threshold (below 200 percent of the FPL) were enrolled in preschool, compared to 43
percent for those in families with income roughly above the ALICE Threshold in Idaho and 50
percent in Oregon and Washington (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2015).
The Achievement Gap

One area of particular concern for the Pacific Northwests ALICE households is the
achievement gap in the regions public schools. Across the region, minorities and low-income
students performed lower on test scores throughout K-12, and similarly had lower high school
graduation rates.
The 2012-2013
high school
graduation rate
in Oregon was 71
percent for White
students, 61
percent for Hispanic
students, and 57
percent for Black
students.
In Idaho, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math test scores for 12th
graders are 11 percent lower for those eligible for school lunches than those who are not
(U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Graduation rates by race are not available for Idaho.
Similar gaps exist for Black, Hispanic, and low-income students in Washington on 4th grade
reading scores and 10th grade math scores (Washington Office of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction, 2014; Washington Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and
Accountability Committee, 2015). The 2012-2013 high school graduation rate in Washington
was 80 percent for White students but 66 percent each for Hispanic and Black students (U.S.
Department of Education, 2013).
Another way of measuring differences in educational outcomes by race is the National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES) Black-White achievement gap. Nationally, NCES estimates
that Black students scored 31 points lower than White students on 2011 (NAEP 8th grade
math assessments; by comparison, that gap was 24 points in Oregon and 30 points in
Washington (with no data available for Idaho). The Hispanic-White achievement gap based
on 8th grade reading scores for public school students was 24 points nationally in 2009,
compared to 28 points in Idaho, 22 points in Oregon, and 24 points in Washington (U.S.
Department of Education, 2011; Hemphill and Vanneman, 2011).
105
In Oregon, Hispanic, Black, and Native American 8th graders are typically at least one year
behind grade level in math and reading. According to a 2013 audit, achievement gaps by
race/ethnicity are significant and consistent in the state (Oregon Secretary of State, 2013).
The 2012-2013 high school graduation rate in Oregon was 71 percent for White students,
61 percent for Hispanic students, and 57 percent for Black students (U.S. Department of
Education, 2013).
Broader Consequences for Child Care and Education in the

Pacific Northwest
Quality learning experiences have social and economic benefits for children, parents,
employers, and society as a whole, now and in the future. Early learning in particular enables
young children to gain skills necessary for success in kindergarten and beyond. In addition, it
enables parents to work, which enhances the familys current and future earning potential.
The value of quality child care for children, their families, and the wider community is
well documented. Alternatively, poor quality child care can slow intellectual and social
development, and low standards of hygiene and safety can lead to injury and illness
for children. Inadequate child care also has wider consequences: it negatively affects
parents and employers as well, resulting in absenteeism, tardiness, and low productivity
(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2011 and 2013; Haskins, 2011; Childhood Trends, 2011;
McCartney, 2008).
The achievement gap in public elementary and secondary education also has multiple
wider consequences. A recent analysis estimates that Oregons economy would be nearly
$2 billion bigger if all working-age Oregonians were educated to the same level that White
students are (ECONorthwest, 2015).
The importance of
high-quality child
care and public
education remains
a fundamental
American value,
but ALICE
households are
challenged to find
quality, affordable
education at all
levels in the Pacific
Northwest.
106
The difference in the net earnings of a high school graduate versus a high school
dropout in the U.S. is $305,000 over that persons lifetime, according to a 2009 estimate
by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. The gap between
high school graduates and those who hold a bachelors degree is $512,000. Included in
these calculations is income from tax payments minus the cost of government assistance,
institutionalization, and incarceration. The evidence is clear on the importance of needing,
at a minimum, a solid high school education in order to achieve economic success. The lack
of a basic education has repercussions society-wide as well, including lower tax revenues,
greater public spending on public assistance and health care, and higher crime rates. Closing
the education achievement gap would be economically beneficial not only for lower-income
individuals and families, but for all Pacific Northwesterners (Tyler and Lofstrom, 2009; Center
for Labor Market Studies, 2009 and 2009a).
Future Prospects
The importance of high-quality child care and public education remains a fundamental
American value, but ALICE households are challenged to find quality, affordable education at
all levels in the Pacific Northwest. From child care through high school, the regions current
facilities do not match the existing need, creating several important consequences for the
Pacific Northwest economy. Reworking public education to address the achievement gap
takes significant financial resources, but if the gap is not addressed, the regional economy
forgoes local talent. In addition, people with lower levels of education are often less engaged
in their communities and less able to improve conditions for their families. More than half of
those without a high school diploma report not understanding political issues while 89 percent
of those with a Bachelors degree have at least some understanding of political issues.
Similarly, having a college degree significantly increases the likelihood of volunteering, even
controlling for other demographic characteristics (Baum, Ma, and Payea, 2013; Campbell,
2006; Mitra, 2011).
K-12 and Beyond

In terms of K12 and higher education preparing students for jobs, the region
faces two major challenges: job creation, and the reduction in jobs requiring higher
education. Education has traditionally been the best guarantee of higher income and
the two are still strongly correlated. Yet short- and long-term factors may be changing
the equation, especially for ALICE households. Longer-term structural changes have
limited the growth of medium- and high-skilled jobs, changing the need for education
as well as incentives to pursue higher education and take on student debt.
Post-secondary tuition has increased beyond the means of many ALICE households
and burdened many others. Two-thirds of Pacific Northwest college students have
taken out a student loan. In Idahos Class of 2013, 68 percent graduated with debt,
on average $26,622. Similarly, 60 percent of Oregons Class of 2013 graduated
with debt, on average $25,577, and 58 percent of Washingtons Class of 2013
graduated with debt, on average $24,418 (Project on Student Debt, 2014). Because
college graduates have greater earning power, more Americans than ever before
are attending college, but at the same time, more are dropping out and defaulting on
their loans. In the Pacific Northwest, one-third of residents have some college or an
associates degree, but not a bachelors degree. These residents are more likely to
have debt that they cannot repay. Nationally, 58 percent of borrowers whose student
loans came due in 2005 hadnt received a degree, according to the Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Of those, 59 percent were delinquent on their loans or had
already defaulted, compared with 38 percent of college graduates (Cunningham and
Kienzl, 2011).
Another factor limiting the prospects of many recent graduates is a disconnect
between job openings, wages offered, and candidates skills and experience. Recent
national surveys appear to show that there are a number of jobs unfilled due to
lack of qualified candidates (Manpower, 2012). Yet further research shows that this
is not the case. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research and the
Federal Reserve found that many of these jobs actually went unfilled because the
wage being offered was too low, or because applicants did not have the experience
(rather than the skills) requested (Rothstein, 2012; Altig and Robertson, 2012). And a
survey of low-wage workers and employers by the Associated Press-NORC Center
for Public Affairs found that more than 80 percent of workers have the skills and
experience to do their jobs well (Tompson, Benz, Agiesta, and Junius, 2013).
Education has
traditionally been
the best guarantee
of higher income
and the two are still
strongly correlated.
Yet short- and
long-term factors
may be changing
the equation,
especially for ALICE
households.
107
Child Care
Economic trends may make it harder to find and afford quality child care in the Pacific
Northwest in the future. With small amounts of funding for state preschool programs
in Oregon and Washington, no funding in Idaho, and unemployed parents taking
their children out of preschool to cut household costs, it is not surprising that 68 to
80 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds across the region are not enrolled in preschool. The
empty spaces in private child care centers create additional economic problems. In
some cases, centers raise rates for remaining children, but that is often not possible
for government-subsidized spots. In other cases, centers are forced to close. Since
the beginning of 2010, Washington has seen a 30 percent decline in the number
of family child care providers, and overall child care capacity has dropped about 8
percent, although some parts of the state have been hit much harder. In Oregon,
rural counties do not have enough family day care providers or child care centers
to meet the needs of existing communities. The situation in Idaho is slightly better,
with the number of centers having increased slightly from 2012 to 2014, but the
total number of child care spaces statewide declined by 10 percent (Weber, 2015;
Sampson, 2015; Child Care Aware, 2015; NACCRRA, 2012). As a result of all of
these declines, there will be more parents across the region who must forgo work or
advancement, and more children who may not be fully school-ready.
However, there is wide disparity in employment and earnings among young workers
based on their level of education and also among college graduates based on
their major. The unemployment rate for young workers without a college degree
is significantly higher than for those with a degree. Degree majors that provide
technical training (such as engineering, math, or computer science), or majors that
are geared toward growing parts of the economy (such as education and health)
have done relatively well. At the other end of the spectrum, those with majors that
provide less technical and more general training, such as leisure and hospitality,
communications, the liberal arts, and even the social sciences and business, have
not tended to fare particularly well in recent years; hence the increase in welleducated ALICE households (PayScale, 2014; Abel, Deitz, and Su, 2014). For
example, the median annual salaries of college-educated workers age 25 to 59 years
old range from $39,000 for an early childhood educator to $136,000 for a petroleum
engineer (Carnevale, Cheah, and Hanson, 2015),
Low wages, then, are the main problem, in tandem with strong competition for the
fewer well-paying jobs. This situation will improve slightly as unemployment falls.
But major change will not occur unless there is a structural shift in the kinds of jobs
needed in our economy.
In Oregon, 16.7
percent of residents
are food insecure,
including 223,480
children, and 72
percent of those
residents are
eligible for SNAP.
Nevertheless, basic secondary education remains essential for any job, and
the performance and graduation rates of the Pacific Northwests public schools,
especially for low-income and minority students, remains an area of particular
concern. In fact, according to the Alliance for Excellent Education, if all students
graduated from high school in the Pacific Northwest, the aggregate increased income
would be $33 million in Idaho, $74 million in Oregon, and $283 million in Washington,
with increased federal tax revenues of $61 million from the three states (AEE, 2013).
FOOD
Having enough food is a basic challenge for ALICE households. The USDA defines food
insecurity as the lack of access, at times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all
household members and limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate foods.
According to Feeding Americas 2014 Map the Meal Gap study, 15.6 percent of Idahos
residents are food insecure, including 90,240 children, and only half of those residents are
eligible for SNAP. The Idaho counties with the highest rates of overall food insecurity are
Madison, Lemhi, Shoshone, and Adams. In Oregon, 16.7 percent of residents are food
insecure, including 223,480 children, and 72 percent of those residents are eligible for SNAP.
The Oregon counties with the highest rates of overall food insecurity are Harney, Crook,
Douglas, Grant, Josephine, and Lake. In Washington, 14.6 percent of residents are food
insecure, including 366,450 children, with only 70 percent eligible for SNAP. The Washington
counties with the highest rates of overall food insecurity are Ferry and Whitman (USDA,
2014; Idaho Food Bank, 2015; Gundersen, Engelhard, Satoh, and Waxman, 2015; Feeding
America, 2015).
Access to healthy food options is another challenge for the ALICE population. Many lowincome households work long hours at low-paying jobs and do not have time to regularly
shop for and prepare low-cost meals. In addition, they are faced with higher prices for
and often minimal access to fresh food in low-income neighborhoods, which often makes
healthy cooking at home difficult and unaffordable. More convenient options like fast food,
however, are usually far less healthy. In Idaho, 38 percent of adults and 34 percent of
adolescents do not eat fruit or vegetables daily; the figure for adults is 32 percent in Oregon
and 35 percent in Washington. This may be explained in part by the fact that 33 percent of
Idaho neighborhoods, 23 percent of Oregon neighborhoods, and 28 percent of Washington
108
neighborhoods do not have healthy food retailers within a half-mile rates that are all
comparable to the national average of 30.5 percent (CDC, 2013).
When ALICE families do not have enough food, they may use various strategies to avoid
hunger, but those strategies are not always successful and can result in unintended health
problems. According to the recent Feeding America national survey, the purchase of
inexpensive, unhealthy food is the most commonly reported coping strategy for food-insecure
families (reported by 78.7 percent of respondents), and many families also buy food that has
passed its expiration date (56 percent). Eating foods that are higher in fat, sodium, and sugar,
or that are no longer fresh, can contribute to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, low energy
levels, and poor nutrition. The second most common strategy is to seek federal or charitable
food assistance (63 percent), and a third is to sell or pawn personal property to obtain funds
for food (34.9 percent), which is not a sustainable solution. Most respondents to the survey
employed two or more of these strategies (Feeding America, 2014).
In line with documented links between food insecurity and obesity, ALICE families are more
vulnerable to obesity than families with higher income. ALICE households often lack access
to healthy, affordable food or the time to prepare it, and they have fewer opportunities for
physical activity because of long hours at work and poor access to recreational spaces and
facilities. In addition, stress often contributes to weight gain, and ALICE households face
significant stress from food insecurity and other financial pressures. These factors help
explain why obesity is increasing for those in poverty as well as for households with higher
levels of income (Hartline-Grafton, 2011; FRAC, 2015; Kim and Leigh, 2010). In the Pacific
Northwest overall, more than 25 percent of adults are overweight or obese, slightly less than
the national average of 28 percent (CDC, 2013).
Broader Consequences for Food in the Pacific Northwest

Not having enough income to afford healthy food has consequences not only for ALICEs
health, but also for the strength of the local economy and the future health care costs of
the wider community. Numerous studies have shown associations between food insecurity
and adverse health outcomes such as coronary heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes,
hypertension, and osteoporosis (Seligman, Laraia, and Kushel, 2010; Kendall, Olson, and
Frongillo, 1996). The USDA argues that healthier diets would prevent excessive medical
costs, lost productivity, and premature deaths associated with these conditions (USDA,
1999).
Not having enough

income to afford
healthy food has
consequences not
only for ALICEs
health, but also for
the strength of the
local economy and
the future health
care costs of the
wider community.
The USDAs Thrifty Food Plan does not provide for a sustainable, healthy diet, especially with
the continued increase in the cost of food staples. A recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report
finds that most SNAP benefit levels are based on unrealistic assumptions about the cost of
food, preparation time, and access to grocery stores, and other public health and nutrition
advocates have been even more critical (IOM, 2013; Food Research and Action Center,
December 2012). Unrealistic assumptions about the cost of food and time it takes to prepare
have ripple effects for those relying on SNAP, who often dont get the benefits that they need
and can also wind up being judged as wasteful if they try to use their benefits to buy higherquality or quick-to-prepare foods.
The use of government food programs as well as food kitchens, pantries, and banks has
increased steadily through the Great Recession to the present. From 2007 to 2010, SNAP
enrollment more than doubled across the Pacific Northwest. Growth slowed after the 2009
Recovery Act, which boosted SNAP benefits, expired in 2013; at that point, some individuals
109
Future Prospects
no longer qualified and many others had their benefits reduced (Dean and Rosenbaum,
2013). Yet the strong, ongoing increase in the use of food kitchens, pantries, and banks
suggests that many Pacific Northwesterners continue to be challenged in meeting their food
needs today, and often employ more than one strategy to avoid hunger. Feeding America
reports that nationally, the number of unique clients served by their programs increased by
roughly 25 percent from 2010 to 2014 (Feeding America, 2014).
Many of the strategies people use to avoid hunger are not sustainable, particularly eating
cheaper, less healthy food, and selling or pawning personal property to have money for food.
In fact, these strategies are likely to lead to more families becoming ALICE or slipping into
poverty, either through poor health and additional health care costs or reduced assets to
weather an unexpected emergency.
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTING

Because the Pacific Northwest spans such a large land area and includes so many
rural counties, the region offers only minimal public transportation. There is no public
transportation available to workers in most counties. The largest usage is in King County,
Washington at 12.8 percent of workers, followed by Multnomah County, Oregon at 10.8
percent and Kitsap County, Washington at 9 percent; in Idaho, the largest usage is in Lincoln
County, at just 5.7 percent (American Community Survey, 2013).
Because many
ALICE households
work in the service
sector, they are
required to be on
the job in person,
making vehicles
essential for
employment.
The regions public transportation exceptions are Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington.
Portland has a 15-mile streetcar network, and the highest share of cycling commuters in the
region (6.1 percent). Seattle is a fast-growing city with an expanding transit system, including
a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that extends to surrounding counties. In Washington
overall, there are 31 local public transit authorities. From 2007 to 2012, total public
transportation trips across all modes in the state increased by 9.1 percent, from 202 million
passengers in 2007 to 220 million in 2012 (Washington State Department of Transportation,
2013; U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015).
The Boise-Nampa metro area has one of the highest percentages in the nation of jobs
that are within 45 minutes of public transportation. According to a study by the Brookings
Institution in 2011, Boise-Nampa ranked 22nd out of the top 100 metro areas in the country in
proximity of jobs to public transportation. Yet proximity is only half the battle: the actual public
transportation services available within Boise-Nampa are not very frequent, and outside
the city they are nonexistent, in part because Idaho state funding for public transportation
is minimal. According to surveys by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, of the 45 states that provide some level of state funding for public
transportation, Idaho ranks last, spending only $312,000 each year (Tomer, Kneebone,
Puentes, and Berube, 2011).
Given this public transportation landscape, commuting impacts most workers in the Pacific
Northwest, with a majority using a car to get to their jobs, but it poses particular challenges
for ALICE workers. Because many ALICE households work in the service sector, they are
required to be on the job in person, making vehicles essential for employment. The fact
that nationally, only about one quarter of jobs in low- and middle-skill industries in major
metropolitan areas are accessible by a less-than-90-minute transit ride (U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2015) reveals the depth of the transportation challenges that ALICE workers
face.
Also, as discussed in Section V, it is difficult to find both affordable housing and job
opportunities near one another in the Pacific Northwest. As a result, the mean travel time to
work in Idaho is 20 minutes, in Oregon is 22.5 minutes, and in Washington is 25.7 minutes,
110
compared to the national average of 26 minutes. However, travel time is higher in some
areas, especially Columbia County, Oregon at 31.9 minutes, Wahkiakum County, Washington
at 30.8 minutes, and Pend Oreille County, Washington at 32.5 minutes (American Community
Survey, 2013).
Another way to look at transportation is that 20 percent of commuters in the Pacific Northwest
using both public and private transportation commute to another county for work (Figure
45). There is huge variation across the region: in Harney County, Oregon only 2 percent of
residents commute outside their home county to work, but there are 13 counties in the region
where more than half of workers commute to another county: Fremont, Gem, Jefferson,
Lincoln, Owyhee, and Payette counties in Idaho; Clackamas, Columbia, and Polk counties in
Oregon; and Asotin, Douglas, Skamania, and Wahkiakum counties in Washington. Basically,
those with the longest commutes live in counties just outside Boise, Portland, and Seattle, or
in very rural counties (U.S. Census, 2019-2013).
Long commutes add costs (car, gas, child care) that ALICE households cannot afford. The
average cost of owning and operating a car in the United States ranges from about $6,000
to $12,000 per year, according to the AAA. In Oregon, the estimated value of travel time
for a car or passenger truck is $23.68 per hour. Long commutes also reduce time for other
activities such as exercise, shopping for and cooking healthy food, and community and family
involvement (AAA, 2013; HUD, 2014; Oregon Department of Transportation, 2012).
Figure 45.
Percent of Workers Commuting Outside Home County, the Pacific
Northwest, 2013
4%
57%
2%
57%
5%
58%
Another way to look

at transportation is
that 20 percent of
commuters in the
Pacific Northwest
using both
public and private
transportation
commute to another
county for work.
Seattle
Boise
Source: U.S. Census, 2009-2013
Cars also impact wider quality of life. Nationally, families with a car are more likely to have a
job and live in neighborhoods with greater environmental quality, safety, and social quality
111
Portland
than the neighborhoods of households without cars. Both cars and transit access also have a
positive effect on earnings, though the effect of car ownership is considerably larger (Pendall
et al., 2014).
Because owning a car is essential for work, many ALICE households need to borrow money
in order to buy a vehicle. Low-income families are twice as likely to have a vehicle loan as
all families. Many workers cannot qualify for traditional loans and are forced to resort to nontraditional means to finance a vehicle, such as Buy Here Pay Here used car dealerships
and Car-Title loans. Car-title lending has a significant presence in Idaho, with 108 stores
processing more than 24,500 loans (Center for Responsible Lending, 2012).
In 2010, approximately 33 percent of ALICE households nationally bought a new vehicle
through installment debt, a drop from 44 percent in 2007, reflecting the national decrease
in the purchase of new vehicles. With that national decrease, the average value of vehicles
dropped across the country. Nationally, for low-income families, the median car value is
$4,000, or about one-third of the $12,000 median value of cars owned by middle-income
families (Bricker, Kennickell, Moore, and Sabelhaus, 2012).
Because owning a
car is essential for
work, many ALICE
households need
to borrow money
in order to buy a
vehicle. Low-income
families are twice
as likely to have a
vehicle loan as all
families.
One way low-income households try to close the income gap is by skimping on expenses,
and those expenses often include car insurance. Despite the fact that driving without
insurance is a violation in almost all states and across the Pacific Northwest, 8 percent of
Idaho motorists were uninsured in 2009, as were 10 percent of Oregon motorists and 16
percent of Washington motorists (Insurance Research Council, 2011). Another cost-saving
strategy is not registering a vehicle, saving the annual fee and possibly the repairs needed
for it to pass inspection. These strategies may provide short-term savings, but they have
long-term consequences such as fines, towing and storage fees, points on a drivers license
that increase the cost of car insurance, and even impounding of the vehicle.
Another complication ALICE drivers can face is not being able to pay a traffic ticket. The
system of sizable fixed fines for particular offenses in most municipalities hits low-income
drivers harder than those who are more affluent. Preliminary reports across the country
have found that in many states, when drivers cant pay a ticket, their drivers license can be
suspended, making it harder for people to get and keep jobs, harming credit ratings, and
raising public safety concerns (Urbana IDOT Traffic Stop Data Task Force, 2015; Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights,2015).
Broader Consequences for Transportation in the

Pacific Northwest
These cost-cutting strategies have risks for ALICE households as well as for the
wider community. Long commutes reduce worker productivity, and regional economic
competitiveness (Belsky, Goodman, and Drew, 2005). Older cars that may need repairs
make driving less safe and increase pollution for all. When ALICE workers cannot get to work
on time, productivity suffers. And when there is an emergency such as a child being sick or
injured, if an ALICE household does not have reliable transportation, their options are poor
forgo treatment and risk the childs health, rely on friends or neighbors for transportation, or
call an ambulance, increasing costs for all taxpayers.
There are consequences for the wider community when households do not have access
to a car and cannot get to work or to health care facilities, including reduced economic
productivity and a greater burden on health services, particularly emergency vehicles.
Vehicles without insurance increase costs for all motorists; uninsured and under-insured
motorist coverage adds roughly 8 percent to an average auto premium for the rest of the
community (McQueen, 2008). Low-income households also often defer car maintenance.
112
Again, this short-term cost saving measure creates risks for the wider community as older
and poorly maintained vehicles on the roads pose safety and environmental risks to all
drivers.
Future Prospects
Jobs and transportation are also linked. The rising trend of nonstandard and part-time
schedules can complicate transportation for low-wage workers who may be relying on friends
or family for rides or using public transportation, which may become cost prohibitive on less
than a full-time work schedule (Watson, Frohlich, and Johnston, 2014).
Given the size and age of the Pacific Northwests transportation infrastructure as well as its
growing population, it will be expensive for the region to meet the increasing demand for
transportation improvements (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015). Yet without them,
costs will increase for ALICE commuters in terms of both time spent in transit and wear and
tear on their vehicles.

Quality of health directly correlates to income: low-income households in the U.S. are more
likely than higher-income households to be obese and to have poorer health in general
(CDC, 2011; CDC, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2010). This is a two-way
connection: having a health problem can reduce income and increase expenses, often
moving a family below the ALICE Threshold or even into poverty. But trying to maintain a
household with a low income and few assets can also cause poor health and certainly mental
stress (Choi, 2009; Currie and Tekin, 2011; Federal Reserve, 2013; Zurlo, Yoon, and Kim,
2014). Research on toxic stress has found that living in chronically stressful situations,
such as living in a dangerous neighborhood or in a family that struggles to afford daily food,
damages neurological functioning, which in turn impedes a persons especially a childs
ability to function well (Shonkoff, and Garner, 2012; Evans, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov,
2011).
Having a health
problem can
reduce income
and increase
expenses, often
moving a family
below the ALICE
Threshold or even
into poverty. But
trying to maintain
a household with
a low income and
few assets can
also cause poor
health and certainly
mental stress.
Recent studies have found that access to medical care alone cannot help people achieve
and maintain good health if they have unmet basic needs, such as not having enough to eat,
living in a dilapidated apartment without heat, or being unemployed (Berkowitz, 2015; Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation, December 2011). In a 2011 survey by the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, physicians reported that their patients frequently express health concerns
caused by unmet social needs, including the conditions in which people are born, grow, live,
work, and age. Four in five physicians surveyed say unmet social needs are directly leading
to poor health. The top social needs include: fitness programs (75 percent), nutritious food
(64 percent), transportation assistance (47 percent), employment assistance (52 percent),
adult education (49 percent), and housing assistance (43 percent) (Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, December 2011).
113
For ALICE households in the Pacific Northwest, housing and transportation are tightly linked
and can have a large impact on the household budget. People who live in location-efficient
neighborhoods compact, mixed-use, and with convenient access to jobs, services, transit,
and amenities have lower transportation costs than those who live further away. According
to the Center for Neighborhood Technologys (CNT) Housing and Transportation Affordability
Index, many Pacific Northwest workers live in location-inefficient areas, and as a result
have high transportation costs (CNT, 2011). Commuting long distances will only increase
in the coming years as lack of affordable housing persists and pushes people away from
employment centers.
ALICE households often try to save on health care by forgoing preventative care and
health insurance. As a result, they more frequently use the Emergency Department (ED) for
advanced treatment that might not have been necessary if they had had earlier access to inoffice primary or specialty care. In addition, without regular preventative care and coverage,
they are more likely to develop chronic health conditions. These ongoing conditions then
have implications for their families in terms of additional medical and care expenses as well
as time devoted to caregiving, which is discussed further in the Conclusion.
Preventative Health Care

A common way to try to save on health care costs is to forgo preventative health care, which
typically includes seeing a primary care doctor, taking regular medication as needed, and
maintaining a healthy lifestyle. For many ALICE households, visits to doctors are often seen
as too expensive. In Idaho, 19 percent of all adults went without care in 2011, but among
low-income adults, 33 percent went without. In Oregon, those figures were 18 percent of all
adults but 30 percent of low-income adults; and Washington had the biggest difference, at
17 percent of all adults but 34 percent of low-income adults (Schoen et al., 2013; Cohen,
Kirzinger, and Gindi, 2013; Commonwealth Fund, 2015).
Approximately 4
percent of adults in
Idaho and Oregon
and 3 percent in
Washington live
with serious mental
illness. Of those,
in Idaho only 16
percent receive
mental health
services, while 43
percent do in Oregon
and 29 percent in
Washington.
Forgoing preventative dental care is even more common, and low-income adults are almost
twice as likely as higher-income adults to have gone without a dental check-up in the
previous year. Yet poor oral health impacts overall health and increases the risk for diabetes,
heart disease, and poor birth outcomes (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor & Pensions, 2012). The Health Policy Institute reports that the number of ED visits for
dental conditions in the United States doubled from 2000 to 2012 and continues to rise as
the number of dental office visits declines. In 2012, ED dental visits cost the U.S. health care
system $1.6 billion, with an average cost of $749 per visit. Up to 79 percent of dental ED
visits could be diverted to more cost-efficient community settings. For example, an analysis
in Maryland estimates that the state Medicaid program could save up to $4 million each year
through these types of diversion programs (Wall and Vujicic, 2015).
Untreated mental health issues are also a pressing problem. According to the National
Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), approximately 4 percent of adults in Idaho and Oregon
and 3 percent in Washington live with serious mental illness. Of those, in Idaho only 16
percent receive mental health services, while 43 percent do in Oregon and 29 percent in
Washington, compared to the national rate of 38 percent. These numbers are part of a
broader context: across the U.S., funding has been cut for mental health services while
demand has increased. The result has been longer waiting lists for care, less money to help
patients find housing and jobs, and more people visiting EDs for psychiatric care (NAMI,
2010; Glover, Miller and Sadowski, 2012).
Cost is one of the primary reasons that people do not seek mental health treatment. In recent
national surveys, over 65 percent of respondents cited money-related issues as the primary
reason for not pursuing treatment; even among individuals with private insurance, over
half said that the number one reason they do not seek mental health treatment is because
they are worried about the cost. For those without comprehensive mental health coverage,
treatment is often prohibitively expensive (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality,
2012; Parity Project, 2003).
More than 125,000 children in the Pacific Northwest live with serious mental health
conditions, according to NAMI. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, the
consequences of untreated mental illness in children and teens are severe: nationally, 44
percent of youth with mental health problems drop out of school; 50 percent of children in
the child welfare system have mental health problems; and 67 to 70 percent of youth in the
juvenile justice system have a diagnosable mental health disorder (Stagman and Cooper,
114
2010; NAMI, 2010). National research also shows that consistent with other areas of health,
children in low-income households (such as ALICE) and minority children who have special
health care needs have higher rates of mental health problems than their White or higherincome counterparts, yet are less likely to receive mental health services (VanLandeghem
and Brach, 2009).
In addition to the high costs of health care, low-income and minority families across the
country may experience other barriers to care, including language and cultural barriers,
transportation challenges, and difficulty making work and child care arrangements to
accommodate health care appointments (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor & Pensions, 2012). When care is hard to access, a health problem worsens, and
the cost of treatment increases significantly for the patient or, if the patient cannot
pay, for the state.
Insurance Coverage
Another way to save on health care costs is to forgo health insurance. According to the
Kaiser Family Foundation, for the population under 65 years old in Idaho, 16 percent did not
have health insurance in 2013, while 26 percent of those with income less than 200 percent
of the FPL (roughly below the ALICE Threshold) were without insurance. Similarly, in Oregon
15 percent of the population under 65 years old and 22 percent of those roughly below the
ALICE Threshold were without insurance, and in Washington were 13 percent of the nonsenior population and 27 percent of those roughly below the ALICE Threshold (Kaiser Family
Foundation, 2014).
The national rate

of health insurance
coverage for lowwage workers has
fallen steadily
over the last three
decades.
The national rate of health insurance coverage for low-wage workers has fallen steadily over
the last three decades. However, as recently as 2013 there remained a strong correlation
between income and lack of insurance coverage, with 31 percent of those making less than
$25,000 uninsured compared to 5 percent of those with income over $75,000 (Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2014; Schmitt, 2012).
However, the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Health Insurance
Marketplace has already substantially reduced the number of uninsured Pacific
Northwesterners. As of July 2014 the percentage of uninsured adults in Idaho was 16.6
percent, down from 19.9 percent in 2013. Those uninsured in Oregon fell from 14.5 percent
in 2013 to 5.6 percent in mid-2014, and the uninsured in Washington fell from 16.8 percent
to 10.7 percent. The rate change varied across counties: for example, in Oregon, the rate of
uninsured in some counties decreased by as much as 14 points, while others decreased by
as few as 4 points (Witters, 2014; Oregon Health Authority, 2015).
The effectiveness of the Medicaid expansion and the Health Insurance Marketplace is based
on the fact that the percent of households relying solely on public coverage is increasing.
For example, in Washington the percent of households relying solely on public coverage
increased from 13.3 percent in 2008 to 17.5 percent in 2013, when Health Insurance
Marketplace enrollment began (Washington Employment Security Department, 2014).
115
Forgoing dental insurance is even more common, as it is often not included in private health
insurance packages. Dental care also has restrictive coverage through Medicaid in most
states, including the Pacific Northwest, and as a result, only 68 percent of adults in Idaho
and Washington and 65 percent of adults in Oregon visited a dentist in the past year (Kaiser
Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, June 2012; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014).
Emergency Department Use

The consequences of forgoing preventative care and health insurance include poorer
health status and increases in Emergency Department (ED) use, hospitalizations, and
cardiovascular events (Heisler, Langa, Eby, Fendrick, Kabeto, and Piette, 2004; Piette,
Rosland, Silveira, Hayward, and McHorney, 2011). When health care is expensive, many
ALICE families only seek care when an illness is advanced and pain is unbearable. It is at
that point that many people go to the more expensive ED for help because their condition
has reached a crisis point and they have no other option. Notably, low income is the most
important cause of avoidable hospital use and costs, according to a recent Rutgers study
(DeLia and Lloyd, 2014).
ED use in the Pacific Northwest is extensive, though still slightly below the national average.
In 2013, the number of ED visits was 366 per 1,000 people in Idaho, 356 per 1,000 people in
Oregon, and 335 per 1,000 people in Washington, compared to the national rate of 423 per
1,000 (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2013).
Caregiving
Nationally,
18 percent of
caregivers report
experiencing
extreme financial
strain as a result
of providing care
(4 or 5 on a 5-point
scale), and another
20 percent report
moderate financial
strain.
Another hidden health care cost is that of caring for a sick or elderly family member or
someone living with a disability. A national 2015 AARP survey found that 18 percent of
respondents reported that someone in their household provided unpaid care to a friend or
relative. Of those, almost half (47 percent) had household income of less than $50,000 per
year (AARP Public Policy Institute, 2015). According to the Employee Benefit Research
Institutes 2015 Retirement Confidence Survey, 23 percent of workers and 16 percent
of retirees state they are currently providing unpaid care to a relative or friend (Helman,
Copeland, and VanDerhei, 2015). And the RAND Corporation conservatively estimates that
9 percent of the adult population provides care to a friend or relative over the age of 18
(Ramchand et al., 2014).
While families of all income levels may choose to care for family members themselves, many
caregivers are forced into the role because they cannot afford to hire outside care. In fact,
half of caregivers report that they had no choice in taking on their caregiving responsibilities
(AARP Public Policy Institute, 2015). The value of caregiving is significant for care recipients;
the presence of an informal caregiver can improve care recipients well-being and recovery,
and defray medical care and institutionalization costs. Yet caregiving is costly for families in
several ways, including added direct costs, mental and physical strain on the caregiver, and
lost income due to decreased hours or loss of job (Ramchand et al., 2014; Tanielian et al.,
2013),
Family caregiving also exacts a broader toll on the economy. Nationally, 18 percent of
caregivers report experiencing extreme financial strain as a result of providing care (4 or 5 on
a 5-point scale), and another 20 percent report moderate financial strain. Another 19 percent
of caregivers report a high level of physical strain resulting from caregiving, and 38 percent
consider their caregiving situation to be emotionally stressful (AARP Public Policy Institute,
2015).
For the 60 percent of caregivers who are working, caregiving is also costly in the time it takes
away from employment. Six in 10 caregivers report having experienced at least one impact
or change to their employment situation as a result of caregiving, such as cutting back on
their working hours, taking a leave of absence, or receiving a warning about performance
or attendance (AARP Public Policy Institute, 2015). A 2010 MetLife Mature Market Institute
study quantifies the opportunity cost for adult children caring for their elderly parents. For
women, who are more likely to provide basic care, the total per-person amount of lost wages
116
due to leaving the labor force early and/or reducing hours of work because of caregiving
responsibilities was on average $142,693 over the care period. The estimated impact of
caregiving in lost Social Security benefits was $131,351, and a very conservative estimate
for reduced pensions was approximately $50,000. In total, nationally, the cost impact of
caregiving on an individual female caregiver in terms of lost wages and retirement benefits
was $324,044 (MetLife, 2010).
Broader Consequences for Health and Health Care in the

Pacific Northwest
When ALICE households forgo health care and insurance in an attempt to save money, their
health and household finances suffer, but there are effects on the broader community as well.
Untreated mental health and substance abuse issues shift problems to other areas: they
increase ED costs, increase acute care costs, and add to caseloads in the criminal, juvenile
justice, and corrections systems, as well as increasing costs to assist the homeless and the
unemployed. It should be noted that nationally, each $1 spent on substance abuse treatment
saves $7 in future health care spending (Glover, Miller, and Sadowski, 2012).
Untreated or improperly treated mental illness also costs employees lost wages for
absenteeism, and their companies feel the cost in decreased productivity. A NAMI study
estimated that the annual cost to employers for mental-health absenteeism ranged from
$10,000 for small organizations to over $3 million for large organizations (Harvard Mental
Health Letter, 2010; Parity Project, 2003).
The wider community feels the consequences of increased ED use in increases in health
insurance premiums, charity care, Medicare, and hospital community assistance (Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS), 2010; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2011).
In terms of impact on the economy as a whole, family caregiving offers substantial health
care cost savings, since it is much less expensive than hospital care or a nursing home, but it
incurs significant costs for U.S. employers. Family caregiving for the elderly costs employers
approximately $13.4 billion in excess health care spending each year for employees who
are also caregivers, due to the toll that caregiving takes on their own health (MetLife, 2010).
In addition, an analysis of the Gallup Well-Being survey found that the lost productivity due
to absenteeism among full- and part-time caregivers cost the U.S. economy more than $28
billion in 2010 (Witters, 2011).
The trend for

low-income
households to
have poorer
overall health than
higher-income
households will
increase as
health care and
healthy food
costs rise and the
Pacific Northwest
population ages.
The trend for low-income households to have poorer overall health than higher-income
households will increase as health care and healthy food costs rise and the Pacific Northwest
population ages. Poor health is a common reason why many households face a reduction
in income and become ALICE households in the first place, and without sufficient income, it
is even harder to stay healthy or improve health. Low-income households are more likely to
be obese and have poor health status, both long-term drivers that will increase health care
needs and costs in the future.
The situation may be reversed or at least slowed by the ACA, though its impact is not yet
clear. New research from the Harvard School of Public Health shows that health insurance
coverage not only makes a difference in health outcomes but also decreases financial strain
(Baicker and Finkelstein, 2011). Expanded health insurance coverage and more efficient
health care delivery would improve conditions for all households below the ALICE Threshold.
117
Future Prospects
Prospects for ALICE families in Idaho are dampened by the fact that Idaho is not expanding
Medicaid as part of the ACA. Kaiser predicts there will be a gap of 51,000 people with
incomes above Medicaid eligibility limits but below the lower limit for Marketplace premium
tax credits. Three-quarters of them will be in working families (Garfield, Damico, Stephens,
and Rouhani, 2015). In addition, Idaho has low ratings for how patient-centered its health
insurance market is. According to the National Health Council, Idaho was one of 14 states
that scored the lowest in the U.S. in that regard, and it is the only one of those 14 states that
has its own state-run health insurance exchange (National Health Council, 2015).
Affording Health Care
Across the Pacific Northwest, there may be additional challenges for some ALICE
families to afford the Health Insurance Marketplace plans. It will not be an issue for
those who qualify for Medicaid (household income less than 138 percent of the FPL),
but for families with income above that level who still dont earn enough to meet all
of their basic needs, even the lowest-cost ACA Bronze Plan may not be economical,
especially when incorporating the plans high deductible. The ADP Research Institute
estimates that nationally, the income threshold for choosing to participate in health
care coverage is $45,000 per year. Initial research on the first wave of enrollment
shows that there is a lower rate of participation across the country by low- and
moderate-income families (those with income between 138 percent and 400 percent
of the FPL), and a higher rate of taxpayers paying the penalty instead ($95 per
adult and $47.50 per child) 5 percent of taxpayers instead of the 2 to 4 percent
estimated (ADP Research Institute, 2014; Viebeck, 2015; Koskinen, 2015).
The availability
of primary care is
especially important
for prevention
and cost-effective
treatment.
In the Pacific Northwest, the income threshold may be slightly higher. For example,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation Subsidy Calculator, a married couple
with two children living in Seattle with an annual income of $53,312 (the cost of the
Household Survival Budget for King County) would pay a monthly premium of $166
for the ACA Bronze Plan (after taking into account $3,962 in annual subsidies), which
looks much better than the $456 budgeted in the Household Survival Budget for
the familys health care costs without health insurance. However, the out-of-pocket
expenses for the Bronze Plan, including co-pays and deductible, could total at least
$10,400 per year, increasing the monthly cost of the Bronze Plan to $1,033, far more
than their current spending (Kaiser Family Foundation Subsidy Calculator, 2015).
These families will need to make difficult decisions about their health care.
The Physician Shortage
Finding doctors to treat low-income families may be even more difficult. According
to the Kaiser Family Foundation, there are 74 Primary Care Health Professional
Shortage Areas (HPSA) in Idaho, with 63 percent of need being met slightly better
than the national rate of 60 percent for HPSAs across the country. In addition, Idaho
has approximately 36 Dental Care and Mental Health HPSAs, with only 58 percent of
need being met. In Oregon, there are 108 Primary Care HPSAs, with only 56 percent
of need being met, and approximately 75 Dental Care and Mental Health HPSAs,
with only 51 percent of need being met. And Washington has 147 Primary Care
HPSAs, with only 47 percent of need being met, and approximately 112 Dental Care
and Mental Health HPSAs, with only 40 percent of need being met (Kaiser Family
Foundation, 2014).
The availability of primary care is especially important for prevention and costeffective treatment. People without a usual source of care, particularly the uninsured
and Medicaid enrollees, are more likely to rely on EDs for care (Liaw, Petterson,
Rabin, and Bazemore, 2014). The lack of primary care not only reduces the quality
of health in the short term, but it contributes to more complicated health issues and
increased costs over the long term.
118
Going forward, there will be increased demand for health care in the Pacific
Northwest from a population that is aging and is increasingly insured due to the ACA.
Just to maintain current rates of utilization, Idaho will need an additional 382 primary
care physicians (PCPs) by 2030, a 44 percent increase compared to the states 864PCP workforce as of 2010. Oregon will need an additional 1,174 PCPs, a 38 percent
increase compared to the states 3,027-PCP workforce; and Washington will need
an additional 1,695 PCPs, a 32 percent increase compared to the states 5,141-PCP
workforce (Robert Graham Center, 2012; Petterson, Cai, Moore, and Bazemore, 2013).
Accessing and affording health care in the Pacific Northwest is most difficult for noncitizens, who are not covered by the ACA. Immigrants and unauthorized workers in
the Pacific Northwest will continue to struggle to find and afford health care coverage
(Lloyd, Cantor, Gaboda, and Guarnaccia, 2011; de Navas, 2014).
TAXES
While headlines often feature low-income households receiving government assistance, the
analysis of the Household Survival Budget makes clear that ALICE households contribute to
the economy by working, buying goods and services, and paying taxes. There is some tax
relief for the elderly and the lowest-income earners, but most ALICE households pay about
15 percent of their income in federal taxes. Only very low-income households, earning less
than $20,000 per year for a couple or $10,000 per year for a single individual (below the
poverty rate), are not required to file a tax return (IRS, 2013). However, when households
cannot afford to pay their taxes, they increase the cost to those who do. They also incur the
risk of being audited and paying fines and interest in addition to the original amount due.
There is some
tax relief for the
elderly and the
lowest-income
earners, but most
ALICE households
pay about 15
percent of their
income in
federal taxes.
ALICE households pay income, property, and wage taxes. While federal tax credits have
made a difference for many ALICE households, they do not match the size of those received
by higher-income households, such as the mortgage tax deduction. Taxes paid after federal
deductions result in the lowest income quintile paying more than 10 percent in income tax
while the highest income quintile pays less than 8 percent, according to the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities. In terms of payroll taxes, on average, the lowest income group pays
more than 8 percent of their income while those in the highest income quintile pay less than
6 percent of theirs. The lowest income group on average also pays almost 8 percent of their
income in state sales and excise taxes, while those in the highest income quintile pay less
than 3 percent (Marr and Huang, 2012; Springer, 2005).
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) are important ways
to reduce poverty, primarily for families with children. The credits encourage work, with little
or no effect on the number of hours worked, and they supplement the wages of low-paid
workers. For taxpayers eligible for the EITC who have no qualifying children, the credit does
little to offset income and payroll taxes. However, for taxpayers (married or single) with
qualifying children, many experience a reduction in poverty rates due to the EITC and CTC.
For taxpayers with the lowest income, the two credits together more than offset income and
payroll taxes to raise living standards (Marr, Huang, Sherman and Debot, 2015; Hungerford
and Thiess, 2013).
119
Access to Care
In addition, insurance coverage does not guarantee access to health care in the
Pacific Northwest. In fact, 85 percent of PCPs in Idaho, 80 percent in Oregon, and
76 percent in Washington did not accept new Medicaid patients in 201112. Some
states, but none in the Pacific Northwest, are using their own funds to keep Medicaid
reimbursement rates at the same level as when the ACA was introduced now that
federal funds have ended; these 15 states have not seen the same drop in doctors
seeing Medicaid patients (Ollove, 2015; Decker, 2013).
The median adjusted gross incomes of EITC filers in the Pacific Northwest are very low
$15,171 for a household in Idaho, $12,122 in Oregon, and $13,133 in Washington so
the tax credits they are eligible for are helpful, but are not enough to move them to financial
stability.
Broader Consequences for Taxes in the Pacific Northwest

When ALICE workers cannot pay their taxes, not only do they face penalties, fees and the
hassle of collection agencies and more paperwork, but the wider community must cover that
gap. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), at the end of fiscal year 2011,
individuals owed a total of $258 billion in federal unpaid tax debts (U.S. GAO, 2012). When
this happens, the rest of the community must pay more to cover the shortfall as well as the
cost of collection efforts.
Future Prospects
Besides the cost

of household basics
and the level of
current wages, the
tax code is another
factor in questions
of economic
inequality.
Besides the cost of household basics and the level of current wages, the tax code is another
factor in questions of economic inequality. According to the Federal Reserve, federal taxes
compress income distribution and reduce income inequality while state taxes widen the
after-tax income distribution. Oregon is an exception to the rule due to progressive personal
income taxes; Oregon state taxes vary less between the top and bottom income levels,
making taxes more equal (Cooper, Lutz and Palumbo, 2015). The Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy (ITEP) shows that sales taxes and property taxes in the Pacific Northwest
are regressive, while income taxes in Idaho and Oregon are progressive, and there are no
income taxes in Washington. The net effect is that taxes widen income inequality the most in
Washington and the least in Oregon (ITEP, 2015). Reductions in tax rates for income tax,
sales tax, and payroll taxes could increase the income families have to afford the basic
Household Survival Budget. In addition, changes in the tax structure could reduce inequality
between income groups.
INCOME
In the Pacific Northwest and nationally, while 2010 marked the technical end of the
Recession, low-income families continued to struggle over the next three years. Families
at the bottom of the income distribution saw continued substantial declines in average real
incomes (incomes after adjusting for inflation) between 2010 and 2013, while those in the
top half saw, on average, modest gains (Bricker et al., 2014). The most immediate challenge
to financial stability for the Pacific Northwests ALICE households is employment finding
jobs with wages and numbers of hours that can support a basic household budget, as well
as basic work protections such as employment security, paid sick days, and access to health
care. Other important sources of income for some ALICE families are government benefit
programs and, less commonly, income from investments.
Unemployment and Underemployment

The unemployment rate has improved since the Great Recession: from 2009 to 2014, the
rate fell from 9 percent to 4.8 percent in Idaho, from 11.3 percent to 6.9 percent in Oregon,
and from 10 percent to 6.2 percent in Washington. However, the underemployment rate
remained high in 2014 at 10.3 percent in Idaho, 14.2 percent in Oregon, and 12.5 percent in
Washington (BLS, 2013a). According to national statistics from the Federal Reserve, half of
part-time workers and one-third of underemployed workers would prefer to work more hours
(Federal Reserve, 2015).
120
For a small but significant number of people, long-term unemployment continues to be a

problem. As former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke explained, Because of its
negative effects on workers skills and attachment to the labor force, long-term unemployment
may ultimately reduce the productive capacity of our economy (Bernanke, 2012). Obviously,
long spells of unemployment can also have disastrous financial consequences for lowincome families.
The Pacific Northwest has relatively low high school graduation rates, and those rates are
even lower for youth in households with insufficient income because there is often pressure
on family members to drop out of school and work. Unfortunately, in the current economy,
pressure for additional family income is great but there are fewer job opportunities, especially
for youth and particularly in the Pacific Northwests major cities. Low graduation rates and
high unemployment both contribute to higher rates of crime, teen pregnancy, and substance
abuse. The rates of disconnected youth in the region are similar to the national average.
Across the U.S. in 2013, 8 percent of teens ages 16 to 19 were not attending school and
were not working. In Idaho and Oregon, that figure was also 8 percent of teens, and in
Washington it was 7 percent (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013).
Employment Practices
The industries and occupations where ALICE is most likely to work in the Pacific Northwest
are often those that not only pay low wages but also have low levels of employment security,
no paid sick days or parental leave, and no access to health care (Schmitt, 2012; Schwartz,
Wasser, Gillard, and Paarlberg, 2015; Watson and Swanberg, 2011). These industries
include agriculture, tourism, and education and health services. The much noted technology
and modern manufacturing industries contribute strongly to the regions GDP but have lower
levels of employment overall. Yet even within these industries, there is a substantial portion
of workers who do not receive high wages, but who provide critical support services (Sorte,
Lewin and Opfer, 2011; City of Portlands Planning and Sustainability Commission, 2015).
Ultimately,
low wages also
mean that ALICE
households cannot
afford to save,
and the loss of
a job means
that any savings
accumulated in
better times
are used.
One of the greatest economic shifts over the last 50 years is the increase in working mothers.
In 1967, 27.5 percent of mothers were primary or co-breadwinners for their families; by 2012,
nearly two-thirds (63.3 percent) brought home at least 25 percent of their families incomes
(Glynn, 2014). This shift has a number of different repercussions for families. On the one
hand, families have greater income or more diversified sources of income if there is more
than one income earner. On the other, women still earn less than men and are more likely
to work in low-wage jobs. These jobs typically have work scheduling policies and practices
that pose particular challenges for workers with significant responsibilities outside of their job,
including caregiving, pursuing education and workforce training, or holding down a second
job (National Womens Law Center, 2014; Watson, Frohlich, and Johnston, 2014).
Ultimately, low wages also mean that ALICE households cannot afford to save, and the loss
of a job means that any savings accumulated in better times are used. ALICE families have
both the greatest risk of job loss and the least access to resources to soften the blow. The
Pew Economic Mobility Project found that families that experienced unemployment suffered
not only lost income during their period of not working, but also longer-term wealth losses,
compromising their economic security and mobility (Pew Economic Mobility Project, 2013).
121
The employment practices in many of these low-wages jobs, especially part-time jobs, make
it harder for workers to earn a minimal income or plan for the future. According to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, nationally, only 23 percent of part-time workers in the private sector have
medical benefits available, compared to 86 percent of full-time employees. Similarly, 37
percent of part-time workers had access to retirement benefits, compared to 74 percent of
full-time employees; and only 24 percent of part-time workers were offered paid sick leave,
compared to 74 percent of full-time employees (BLS, March 2014).
Broader Consequences for Income in the Pacific Northwest

When ALICE workers and their families struggle to afford a basic household budget, there
are consequences for the whole community, many of which have been outlined above. From
a more global perspective, ALICE workers who are struggling to make ends meet are often
less productive workers. They are more likely to be tired or stressed on the job, to be late, or
to be absent. This puts a strain on fellow workers and company resources.
Unemployed workers add costs to government programs, from unemployment benefits
to all the social services necessary to support a family, as outlined in the ALICE Income
Assessment in Section IV. These expenses increase taxes for all.
Future Prospects
The most immediate challenge to financial stability for the Pacific Northwests ALICE
households is employment. Public assistance also makes a big difference for many ALICE
families, and to a lesser extent, income from investments, which is discussed in the next
section on savings.
The future path of

employment in the
Pacific Northwest
depends, of course,
on the outlook
for the industries
that make up the
regional economy.
The future path of employment in the Pacific Northwest depends, of course, on the outlook
for the industries that make up the regional economy. Over the period 2012 to 2022, the
forecast is for total employment in the region to grow slowly, but there is wide variation in the
performance of various industries and geographic areas. While recovery is often focused on
the top-level jobs in advanced manufacturing, especially aerospace, financial services, and
technology industries, a different group of occupations low-skilled, low-wage service and
agriculture jobs will have the greatest impact on ALICE workers.
Looking ahead, of the occupations with the most projected job openings from 2012 to 2022,
low-skilled jobs have the largest share (Figure 46). More than three-quarters of the 121,445
new jobs in the top 20 projected occupations in the Pacific Northwest pay less than $20 per
hour (equivalent to an annual full-time salary of less than $40,000), and most of those jobs
pay between $10 and $15 per hour. What stands out in these tables, in terms of wages is
how few occupations require a bachelors degree and offer wages over $30 per hour. While
they account for a small percentage of new job growth, these jobs offer much more financial
stability for workers and their families. These occupations include 203 projected openings for
General and Operations Managers in Idaho with an hourly wage of $33.41; 4,959 Registered
Nurses in Oregon with an hourly wage of $37.90; 3,555 General and Operations Managers
in Oregon with an hourly wage of $39.46; 2,831 Postsecondary Teachers in Oregon with an
hourly wage of $30.91; 2,964 Software Developers in Washington with an hourly wage of
$42.00; 2,270 Registered Nurses in Washington with an hourly wage of $38.64; and 1,445
General and Operations Managers in Washington with an hourly wage of $38.57.
One area of possibility for ALICE workers is in the construction industry, which was hit hard
by the Recession. Because the industry is highly dependent on the economic recovery and
economic expansion, the extent of growth is hard to predict. And because young residents
have been slow to form new households, the housing market remains slow. But at least in
the Seattle area, there is a more optimistic forecast for construction jobs (Washington State
Economic Security Department, 2014).
122
Figure 46.
Projected Occupational Demand by Wage, Education, and Work Experience, the Pacific
Northwest, 20122022
2012
EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL
NEW
GROWTH
HOURLY
WAGE
EDUCATION OR TRAINING
WORK
Retail Salespersons
21,293
429
$10.10
Less than high school
None
15,616
339
$12.21
High school diploma or equivalent
None
Registered Nurses
12,276
324
$28.36
Associate's degree
None
Combined Food Preparation and

Serving Workers, Including Fast
Food
9,862
322
$8.62
None
Personal Care Aides
8,197
310
$8.90
None
Cashiers
14,775
229
$9.02
None
9,999
216
$8.57
None
10,968
203
$33.41
Bachelor's degree
<5 years
Nursing Assistants
7,629
182
$10.69
Postsecondary training (non-degree)
None
Cooks, Restaurant
5,510
177
$9.69
<5 years
Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck

Drivers
12,218
166
$16.95
<5 years
Construction Laborers
5,606
164
$13.56
None
Carpenters
5,453
156
$16.48
None
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and

Auditing Clerks
8,968
150
$15.28
None
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop,

Nursery, and Greenhouse
10,113
147
$ 9.19
None
14,268
144
$12.84
None
First-Line Supervisors of Retail

Sales Workers
7,966
141
$15.73
<5 years
Secretaries and Admin Assistants
10,336
140
$13.44
None
Laborers and Movers, Hand
8,567
139
$11.69
None
Janitors and Cleaners
8,977
128
$10.02
None
OCCUPATIONAL TITLE
Source: Idaho Department of Labor, 2015
123
Idaho
Oregon
2012
EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL
NEW
GROWTH
HOURLY
WAGE
WORK
Retail Salespersons
55,158
7,395
$10.97
None
Combined Food Prep, Including

Fast Food
35,481
6,536
$9.27
None
Registered Nurses
30,677
4,959
$37.90
Associate's degree
None
27,757
4,933
$9.40
None
24,204
4,465
$11.62
None

Auditing Clerks
26,026
4,254
$16.93
None
22,627
3,892
$15.03
None
Medical Secretaries
12,382
3,785
$15.79
None
Farmworkers and Laborers
20,287
3,726
$9.27
None
22,398
3,703
$15.94
None
32,305
3,607
$14.60
None
21,064
3,555
$39.46
Bachelor's degree
<5 years
Personal Care Aides
11,682
3,443
$10.46
None
Truck Drivers, Heavy and TractorTrailer
21,630
3,424
$18.39
None
22,297
3,209
$12.12
None
9,124
2,970
$20.59
None
Postsecondary Teachers
19,934
2,831
$30.91
Master's degree
None
Nursing Assistants
13,546
2,762
$12.20
None
Cashiers
33,574
2,573
$10.15
None
Cooks, Restaurant
14,535
2,568
$10.96
<5 years
OCCUPATIONAL TITLE
Carpenters*
Source: BLS, 2012a
124
2012
EMPLOYMENT
ANNUAL
NEW
GROWTH
HOURLY
WAGE
WORK
Cashiers
66,992
3,489
$10.14
None
Combined Food Prep, Including

Fast Food
59,230
3,424
$9.31
None
44,130
3,117
$9.23
None
Software Developers, Applications
55,319
2,964
$42.00
Bachelor's degree
None
Farmworkers and Laborers
60,935
2,413
$9.21
None
47,286
2,336
$12.00
None
44,866
2,327
$15.68
None
Registered Nurses
52,529
2,270
$38.64
Associate's degree
None
44,582
1,967
$11.75
None
Carpenters
37,129
1,897
$20.28
None
47,837
1,894
$14.73
None
Sales Representatives, Wholesale

and Manufacturing
39,866
1,742
$25.67
None
Construction Laborers
28,047
1,740
$16.33
None
Accountants and Auditors
29,909
1,708
$28.76
Bachelor's degree
None
Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
51,515
1,659
$10.11
None
Landscaping and Groundskeeping

Workers
28,689
1,620
$11.99
None
Childcare Workers
36,518
1,603
$9.78
None
34,510
1,576
$12.62
None
Teacher Assistants
37,514
1,562
$14.92
None
43,779
1,505
$16.11
None
36,513
1,445
$38.57
Bachelor's degree
<5 years

Auditing Clerks
44,045
1,309
$17.14
None
OCCUPATIONAL TITLE
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department, 2014
125
Washington
If the economic expansion proceeds in the Pacific Northwest, there will be a host of
opportunities and challenges for ALICE workers. Most importantly, there will be new job
opportunities. But there will also be challenges in finding good employers those who offer
decent wages and job practices as well as affordable housing and reliable infrastructure.
One trend in
low-wage jobs
is the increase
in unpredictable
schedules,
especially
call-in shifts
and involuntary
part-time
schedules.
These practices
reduce income
predictability and
increase family care
costs, especially
child care.
126
One trend in low-wage jobs is the increase in unpredictable schedules, especially call-in
shifts and involuntary part-time schedules. These practices reduce income predictability and
increase family care costs, especially child care (Watson, Frohlich, and Johnston, 2014;
Clawson and Gerstel, 2014; Luce and Fujita, 2012). Ultimately, a just-in-time workforce
shifts the risk of economic fluctuations onto individual workers, making these families more
vulnerable and more likely to be financially unstable (Lambert, 2008; Lambert and Henly,
2010; Henly, Shaefer, and Waxman 2006). Even within occupations, there is wide variation
in wage level, job security, predictability of schedule, opportunities for advancement, and
benefits. Strategies to attract employers who understand the importance of providing wellstructured jobs would make a difference for ALICE households. Research shows that
these employers make a particular difference for workers with a disability, who are often
disadvantaged economically and thus more likely to be ALICE (Ton, 2012; Schur, Kruse,
Blasi, and Blanck, 2009).
With job growth in the Pacific Northwest concentrated in sectors with low wages,
investment in education will have little payoff, reducing the means by which ALICE
families can raise their income to a more financially stable level. Of the top 20
occupations with the most projected job openings in the Pacific Northwest, a bachelors
degree is the highest education requirement and is needed for only 5 percent of job openings
in Idaho and Oregon and 16 percent in Washington. Half of the new jobs in the region require
less than a high school diploma, and one-quarter require only a high school diploma in Idaho
and Oregon, as do one-third in Washington. Only 13 percent require an associates degree
or a postsecondary non-degree award in Idaho and Washington, and 20 percent in Oregon;
none require a masters or doctoral degree.
These projections support national findings that the U.S. economy is less able to generate
middle-wage jobs than in years past. According to the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, at every age level, workers with four years or more of college are actually less
likely to have a good job (one that pays at least $37,000 per year and has employerprovided health insurance and an employer-sponsored retirement plan) now than three
decades ago (Schmitt and Jones, 2012). Similarly, according to the Economic Policy
Institute, the education and training levels necessary for the labor force of 2020 will not
require a significantly greater level of education than workers currently possess (Thiess,
2012). And the experience of recent college graduates shows that they are less likely to
be gainfully employed than previous generations (Stone, Van Horn, and Zukin, 2012). With
this employment outlook, the number of ALICE households will increase, as will demand for
resources to fill the gap to financial stability.
Future prospects for public assistance for ALICE families are moderate. With many
government benefits now linked to work at the same time that many jobs are increasingly
subject to changes in hours due to season or economic activity, many ALICE workers are
in a precarious position. An unexpected reduction in hours means a loss of pay, and it can
mean the loss of employer or government benefits that are tied to work hours, including paid
and unpaid time off, health insurance, unemployment insurance, public assistance, and work
supports. In fact, low-wage workers are 2.5 times more likely to be out of work than other
workers, but only half as likely to receive unemployment insurance (Watson, Frohlich, and
Johnston, 2014; GAO, 2007).
Overall, benefits programs have retrenched since the phasing out of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009; extended federal unemployment benefits were shut off April
2012, and emergency unemployment compensation shut off at the end of 2013. The notable
exception is the expansion of Medicaid with the rollout of the ACA. In some cases, nonprofits
have worked to fill these benefits gaps, most notably with food pantries expanding as SNAP
benefits fall. In other cases, states have sought to fill in the gaps. For example, in Oregon
extended benefits are available for those who enter a vocational training program (Oregon
Employment Department, 2015).
SAVINGS
Without assets, ALICE households risk greater economic instability, both in the present
through an unexpected emergency and in the future because they lack the means to invest
in education, home ownership, or a retirement account. Without savings, it is impossible for
a household to become economically independent. Without asset building stakeholders,
communities may experience instability and a decline in economic growth.
Without
asset building
stakeholders,
communities
may experience
instability and a
decline in
economic growth.
The assets of an ALICE household are especially vulnerable when workers lose their jobs.
According to the Pew Economic Mobility Project, during unemployment, a common strategy
is to draw down retirement accounts. Penalties are charged for early withdrawals, and
retirement savings are diminished, putting future financial stability at risk (Pew Economic
Mobility Project, 2013). This will have an impact on those who retire before their assets can
be replenished, as discussed in the Conclusion.
127
Almost by definition, those with lower incomes have fewer assets, but they also have different
types of assets (Figure 47). Households with income in the lowest quintile are less likely than
households in the highest income quintile to have assets of any kind, and they are half as
likely to have interest earning assets at financial institutions or own a business or a home.
They are also far less likely to own stocks or mutual funds or an IRA or have a 401k savings
plan. Though still less likely, they are closer to rates of households in the highest income
quintile in terms of having a regular checking account or owning a motor vehicle.
Figure 47.
Percent Holding Assets for Households, by Type of Asset Owned and
Household Income, U.S., 2011
Percent Holding Assets for Households, by Type of Asset Owned
and Household Income, U.S., 2011
TOTAL
INTEREST
EARNING
ASSETS AT
FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS
REGULAR
CHECKING
ACCOUNTS
STOCKS
AND
MUTUAL
FUND
SHARES
69.8
29.0
19.6
13.8
OWN
BUSINESS
MOTOR
OR
VEHICLES
PROFESSION
OWN
HOME
IRA OR
KEOGH
ACCOUNTS
401K &
THRIFT
SAVINGS
PLAN
84.7
65.3
28.9
42.1
MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Few assets and a

weak credit record
mean that many
ALICE families
are forced to use
costly alternative
financial products,
as discussed in
Section III. They are
also vulnerable to
predatory lending
practices.
128
Lowest
quintile
44.0
24.2
6.2
11.1
62.6
41.6
10.9
8.8
Second
quintile
60.3
28.7
11.8
9.5
82.2
55.3
18.4
21.9
Third
quintile
72.3
30.8
15.6
11.6
90.5
65.6
25.9
41.9
Fourth
quintile
82.7
31.0
24.0
14.4
93.3
77.0
37.3
61.1
Highest
quintile
89.8
30.2
40.2
22.4
94.8
87.0
52.2
76.7
Source: U.S. Census, 2011
With these types of assets as their financial base, it is clear why low-income families struggle
to accumulate even more assets. The value of a car usually decreases over time and a
checking account, if it grows at all, grows much more slowly than stocks, an IRA, or a 401k.
Few assets and a weak credit record mean that many ALICE families are forced to use
costly alternative financial products, as discussed in Section III. They are also vulnerable to
predatory lending practices. This was especially true during the housing boom, which in part
led to so many foreclosures in the Pacific Northwest (McKernan, Ratcliffe, and Shank, 2011).
High-interest, unsecured debt from credit cards and payday loans can be a useful shortterm alternative to even higher-cost borrowing or the failure to pay mortgage, rent, and utility
bills. For example, the cost of restoring discontinued utilities is often greater than the interest
rate on a credit card. Because payday loans and rent to own stores fill an important need
for families to access furniture, electronics, major appliances, computers, wheels and tires,
musical instruments, and other products, their use has proliferated both over the Internet
and through local businesses, but this means that the downside of payday loans continues
in the Pacific Northwest as across the country (Payday Today, 2014; Jenkins, 2013). In
Idaho there are 32 rent-to-own stores with annual revenues of $24,192,000 and 213 payday
lenders. Though there is more regulation of payday lenders in Oregon and Washington,
there is still a significant rent-to-own industry with 58 stores in Oregon with annual revenues
of $43,848,000 and 104 stores in Washington with annual revenues of $78,624,000
(Association of Progressive Rental Organizations, 2015; Center for Responsible Lending,
2012).
The repeated use of payday loans and credit card debt increases fees and interest rates
and decreases the chance that they can be repaid (Center for Responsible Lending,
2006; Campbell, Jackson, Madrian, and Tufano, 2011; Boguslaw, 2013). Repeated use of
payday loans is also linked to a higher rate of moving out of ones home, delaying medical
care or prescription drug purchases, and even filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy (Center for
Responsible Lending, 2006; Campbell, Jackson, Madrian, and Tufano, 2011; Boguslaw,
2013).
For military personnel, payday loans are associated with declines in overall job performance
and lower levels of retention. Indeed, to discourage payday loans to military personnel, the
2007 National Defense Authorization Act caps rates on payday loans to service members at a
36 percent annual percentage rate (Campbell, Jackson, Madrian, and Tufano, 2011).
Broader Consequences for Savings in the Pacific Northwest

When ALICE families do not have savings, they do not have the resources to resolve an
emergency and are often forced to seek public assistance, often winding up in a more
vulnerable position than if they had had the means to address the issue immediately. The
community as a whole not only shares the cost of emergency services, but it feels the
broader social and economic disruption that such emergencies cause.
Future Prospects
The lack of savings may not be noticed from day to day, but it takes its toll over time when
there are no resources for an emergency and a family spirals into homelessness, when a
family cannot send their child to college, or when seniors cannot retire. Those who lost their
jobs or moved into lower paying jobs, especially during the Great Recession, have used
their savings to get by, and with lower wages, many have not been able to replenish those
savings. This lack of resources to invest is one of the strongest drivers of financial inequality
in the U.S. Because low-income households have few assets to begin with and the assets
they are more likely to have are either liquid assets, which are consumed by emergencies,
or cars, which do not gain in value over time it is extremely difficult for ALICE families to
improve their asset base.
The lack of savings

may not be noticed
from day to day, but
it takes its toll over
time when there
are no resources for
an emergency and
a family spirals into
homelessness, when
a family cannot
send their child
to college, or
when seniors
cannot retire.
129
Lack of savings has consequences both for short-term financial stability and for longer-term
economic mobility. According to the Pew Economic Mobility Project, even for low-income
families, the children of parents who save are more likely to experience upward mobility than
those who do not (Cramer, OBrien, Cooper, and Luengo-Prado, 2009).
CONCLUSION
This Report on Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed (ALICE) households across
the Pacific Northwest offers a new set of tools on both the state and the local level that
policymakers and stakeholders in the Pacific Northwests future can use to understand
financial hardship in the region. The Report explains what it costs to function at the most
basic level in the local economy, using the Household Survival Budget. In addition, the
Report reveals that a full 35 percent of households in the Pacific Northwest cannot reach
even that most basic level of functioning in the modern economy, because they earn below
the ALICE Threshold for economic survival.
In order to address the economic challenges in the region it is important to recognize that
these families are forced to take risks in order to get by, such as forgoing health insurance,
car repairs, or a meal risks that can be harmful to the families as well as costly for the
wider community.
ALICE households range from young families with children to senior citizens, and they face
challenges ranging from low-wage jobs located far from their homes, with the associated
increased cost of commuting, to financial barriers that limit access to low-cost community
banking services, to having few or no assets to cushion the cost of an unexpected health
emergency or caregiving need. Some households become ALICE after an emergency, while
others have been struggling near the poverty line since the Great Recession. Effective policy
solutions will need to reflect this reality.
Some households
become ALICE after
an emergency, while
others have been
struggling near the
poverty line since
the Great Recession.
Effective policy
solutions will
need to reflect
this reality.
While ALICE families differ in their composition, obstacles, and magnitude of need, there
are four broad trends that will impact future ALICE families and the wider community, as this
section explains:
1. Population changes aging and international migration
2. Racial/ethnic diversity economic differences continue between population groups
3. Natural disasters floods, earthquakes, droughts, and wildfires have disproportionately
negative effects on low-income groups
4. Voting the upcoming presidential election and ALICEs political voice
What would make a difference for ALICE families? What will it take to expand the options
available to struggling working households? With the Economic Viability Dashboard,
stakeholders can better identify where housing is affordable for local wages, where there are
job opportunities, where there are strong community resources for ALICE households, and
where there are gaps.
As the ALICE Income Assessment documents, despite aggregate ALICE household
earnings of more than $27 billion and despite another $21 billion in spending by government,
nonprofits, and hospitals, there are still 1.6 million households in the Pacific Northwest
struggling financially.
Without public assistance, ALICE households would face even greater hardship, and many
more would be in poverty. However, the majority of government programs are intended
to alleviate poverty and help the poor obtain basic housing, food, clothing, health care,
and education (Haskins, 2011; Shaefer and Edin, 2013), not to enable economic stability.
Accordingly, these efforts have not solved the problem of economic insecurity among ALICE
households. This is clearest in Social Security spending: senior households largely have
incomes above the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) but often still below the ALICE Threshold for
130
economic survival. Quantifying the problem can help stakeholders best decide whether to
fill that gap by working to increase income for ALICE households or decrease expenses for
basic household necessities.
This section also reviews the short-term interventions that can help sustain ALICE
households through an emergency, as well as medium-term strategies that can ease the
consequences and hardship of those struggling to achieve economic stability in the Pacific
Northwest. Finally, this section considers the long-term, large-scale economic and social
changes that would significantly reduce the number of households with income below the
ALICE Threshold.
POPULATION CHANGES
With the population across the Pacific Northwest expected to continue to see high levels of
growth, there are many implications for ALICE households. The Pacific Northwest is among
the fastest growing regions in the country, second only to some southern states, and is well
above the national average of 10 percent from 2000 to 2010 and the projected national
average of 9 percent from 2010 to 2020 and 8 percent from 2020 to 2030 (U.S. Census,
2005) (Figure 48).
Figure 48.
Population Growth, Pacific Northwest, 2000 to 2030
Fig 48 Pop Growth PNW 2000-30
20%
18%
17%
16%
16%
Percent of Growth
The Pacific
Northwests
population has
become both older
and more diverse,
and this trend
is projected to
continue into the
next two decades.
15%
14%
14%
13% 13%
12%
12%
11% 11%
10%
10%
9%
8%
8%
6%
4%
2%
Growth %
2000 to 2010
Growth %
2010 to 2020
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Growth %
2020 to 2030
US
The Pacific Northwests population has become both older and more diverse, and this trend
is projected to continue into the next two decades. The aging of the Baby Boomers has wide
implications, including a smaller proportion of younger families, a more racially and ethnically
diverse population of families with children, and a decrease in the working-age population.
The work gap provides opportunities for immigrants in the Pacific Northwest, but because
ethnic and racial obstacles still impede economic stability for many of these groups, there will
be ongoing challenges to economic prosperity in the region.
131
0%
AN AGING POPULATION
Between 2005 and 2050, the share of the population aged 60 and over is projected to
increase in nearly every country in the world. Insofar as this shift will tend to lower both labor
force participation and savings rates, it raises bona fide concerns about a future slowing
of economic growth (Bloom, Canning, and Fink, 2011). The Pacific Northwests elderly
population is projected to increase from 12-13 percent of the population (not households)
in 2010 to 18 percent of the population by 2030. The regions elderly population will reach
2.8 million by 2030, when all surviving baby boomers are 65 and over (Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services, 2010; U.S. Census, 2005).
With 39 percent of non-retirees nationally giving little or no thought to financial planning for
retirement and 31 percent with no retirement savings or pension, the number of senior ALICE
households will likely increase. Retirement plan participation has continued to decrease since
the Great Recession for families in the bottom half of the income distribution. Participation
rebounded slightly only for upper-middle income families from 2010 to 2013, but it did not
move back to the levels observed in 2007 (Bricker, et al, 2014).
With 39 percent
of non-retirees
nationally giving
little or no thought
to financial
planning for
retirement and 31
percent with no
retirement savings
or pension, the
number of senior
ALICE households
will likely increase.
132
This shift in demographics, as well as the impact of the housing boom and bust, will likely
produce more senior ALICE households and increase their economic challenges. In
particular, many aging householders in the Pacific Northwest have seen the value of their
houses decline, their retirement assets go toward emergencies, and their wages decrease
so that they cannot save. A recent survey of adults ages 45-64 years old in Washington state
provides additional insight: more than half of respondents are anxious about their finances
in the future, 24 percent have less than $25,000 in savings, and 81 percent wished they had
saved more for their retirement (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2015;
Nelson, 2013).
More of the ALICE seniors will be women because they are likely to live longer than their
generation of men. Generally, women have worked less and earned less than men, and
therefore have lower or no pensions and lower Social Security retirement benefits. Because
women live longer than men, they are more likely to be single and depend on one income at
older ages: nationally in 2012, only 46 percent of women aged 65 and older were married,
compared to 73 percent of men (Waid, 2013; BLS, First Quarter, 2015; Hounsell, 2008; U.S.
Census, 2012).
Infrastructure
The aging population, combined with other trends, will have significant consequences for
ALICE households and the wider community. First, there will be increased pressure on
the infrastructure in the region, especially the housing market for smaller affordable rental
units. These units will need to be in proximity to family, health care, and other services, or
transportation services will need to be expanded for older adults who cannot drive, especially
those in rural areas. Unless changes are made to the Pacific Northwests housing stock,
the current shortage will increase, pushing up prices for low-cost units and making it harder
for ALICE households of all ages to find and afford basic housing. In addition, homeowners
trying to downsize may have difficulty realizing home values they had estimated in better
times, which they had thought would support their retirement plans (U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2015; Washington Department of Social and Health Services, 2014).
Senior Living and Eldercare

Second, there will be increased demand for assisted living, nursing facilities, and home
health care. But without sufficient savings, many families will not be able to afford these
services. For example, in Washington the number of people 60 years and older in a skilled
nursing facility is projected to increase by 27 percent from 2010 to 2020 (Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services, 2010). The cost of these facilities and the difficulty
of finding quality services will be a major problem for senior ALICE households. The median
annual cost of a private room in a nursing home in Idaho is $86,505, in Oregon is $92,710,
and in Washington is $95,995, representing almost 250 percent of the median annual
household income in each state, according to the AARP Scorecard on Long-Term Services
and Supports. In terms of access to long-term care, Oregon and Washington ranked highest
with a score of 54 out of 60 on an Index that includes information, awareness, counseling,
and quality; while Idaho scored only 28 (Reinhard, Kassner, Houser, Ujvari, Mollica, and
Hendrickson, 2014).
The need for quality elder caregiving is already apparent. Washingtons Adult Protective
Services has experienced a significant increase in the number of investigations from 2005
to 2013, including a 96 percent increase in investigations for financial exploitation and a
71 percent increase in self-neglect cases (Washington Department of Social and Health
Services, 2014).
Caregiving
ALICE families
will more likely
take on caregiving
responsibilities for
their own relatives
because they
cannot afford other
care options.
ALICE families will more likely take on caregiving responsibilities for their own relatives
because they cannot afford other care options. Currently, approximately 20 percent of
households have a caregiver, with half of those reporting income less than $50,000, or
close to the ALICE Threshold. The demand for caregivers is projected to increase across
the country; in Washington in particular, the number of seniors using in-home services is
projected to increase by 32 percent from 2010 to 2020 (Washington State Department of
Social and Health Services, 2010). At the same time, it is projected that there will be relatively
fewer family members available to provide care, which is not surprising given the financial
burdens that caregiving imposes. Recent surveys have found that this trend has already
started. The AARP Policy Institute reports that the number of caregiving hours in 2014 is
similar to those in 2009, but they are provided by fewer caregivers (AARP Public Policy
Institute, 2015).
133
Third, there will be a need for even more caregivers in the future, both paid home health
aides and unpaid family members, and they are both more likely to be ALICE. According
to an estimate by Washington State University, the state will need 77,000 more home care
aides by 2030. Similarly, demand is also expected to rise in Idaho and Oregon (see job
projections in Section VI). These jobs often pay around $10 per hour, are not well regulated,
and yet involve substantial responsibility for the health of vulnerable clients. They also
require the worker to be there in person, which can mean travelling great distances even in
bad weather and with variable hours (Center for Health Workforce Studies, 2011; Bercovitz,
Moss, Park-Lee, Jones, Harris-Kojetin, and Squillace, 2011).
There are serious health and financial consequences for caregivers; they risk future financial
instability due not just to reduced work opportunities, but also to lost Social Security benefits
and reduced pensions, as well as the toll caregiving takes on both mental and physical
health. This is reflected in the high percent of caregivers who report stress: A recent study
found that in all three states in the Pacific Northwest, more than half of caregivers reported
experiencing a lot of stress, and more than one-third were reported not being well-rested
(Reinhard, Kassner, Houser, Ujvari, Mollica, and Hendrickson, 2014).
One particularly vulnerable subset of caregivers is the 5.5 million military caregivers in
the United States. Military caregivers helping veterans from earlier eras tend to resemble
civilian caregivers in many ways; by contrast, post-9/11 military caregivers (accounting for 20
percent of military caregivers) differ systematically, according to a RAND Corporation survey.
These caregivers are more likely to be caring for a younger individual with a mental health
or substance use condition. They themselves tend to be younger (more than 40 percent are
between ages 18 and 30), nonwhite, a veteran of military service, employed, and perhaps
most significantly, not connected to a support network (Ramchand,et al., 2014).
IMMIGRATION
If immigration continues at the same rate as 2010 to 2013, by 2020, the number of
new immigrants in Idaho could increase by 41 percent, in Oregon by 54 percent, and in
Washington by 14 percent. This will mean that new immigrants, those arriving between 2010
and 2020, will be the largest percent of foreign-born residents in each state (Migration Policy
Institute, 2013) (Figure 49).
If immigration
Figure 49.
continues at the
Foreign-Born Residents Period of Entry into U.S., Pacific Northwest, 1990
same rate as 2010 to 2020
to 2013, by 2020,
the number of new
100%
immigrants in Idaho
90%
could increase by 41
29%
36%
80%
40%
percent, in Oregon
70%
by 54 percent, and
60%
25%
2010-2020 Projected
in Washington by
21%
18%
2000-2009
50%
14 percent.
1990-1999
Percent of Foreign Born Residents
Fig 49 Foreign-Born POE PNW 1990-2020
40%
30%
19%
20%
10%
0%
23%
Idaho
12%
30%
Oregon
Source: Migration Policy Institute, 2013; and author calculations
134
23%
24%
Washington
Before 1990
Most of the growth in the Pacific Northwests population over the next 10 years will come
from immigration from Asia and then from Latin America, but also Europe, Africa, and
Canada. Currently, Asian households account for only 1 percent of the population in
Idaho, but make up 3 percent in Oregon and are the largest minority in Washington at 6
percent. The Hispanic population accounts for the largest minority in Idaho at 3 percent of
households, and in Oregon at 5 percent.
Looking further ahead, immigrant populations will increase substantially by 2050 across
the Pacific Northwest. According to a report by the Federation for American Immigration
Reform, the number of immigrants from Asia could double or even triple across the
region, rising by more than 150 percent in Idaho to over 50,000, by over 250 percent in
Oregon to over 425,000, and by 250 percent in Washington to 1.3 million. The number
of immigrants from Latin America could increase even more, by more than 1,000 percent
in Idaho to over 600,000, by over 700 percent in Oregon to 1.6 million, and by over 900
percent in Washington to 2.9 million, in which case they would surpass Asians as the Pacific
Northwests largest minority (Martin and Fogel, 2006).
These groups vary widely in language, education, age, and skills. Many are well educated
and financially successful in the United States. However, many immigrant families have
distinct challenges that make them more likely to be unemployed or in struggling ALICE
households, including low levels of education, minimal English proficiency, and lack of access
to support services if they have unauthorized citizenship status (Gonzalez-Barrera, Lopez,
Passel and Taylor, 2013).
As both workers
and entrepreneurs,
immigrants have
been an important
source of economic
growth in the Pacific
Northwest.
As both workers and entrepreneurs, immigrants have been an important source of economic
growth in the Pacific Northwest. According to the U.S. Census Bureaus Survey of Business
Owners, in Idaho in 2007, the last year for which data is available, there were:
3,875 Latino-owned businesses with sales and receipts of $457.3 million employing
4,145 people
1,269 Asian-owned businesses with sales and receipts of $482.2 million, employing
3,185 people
In Oregon in the same year, there were:
11,338 Latino-owned businesses with sales and receipts of $1.7 billion and employing
13,916 people
12,647 Asian-owned businesses with sales and receipts of $3.2 billion and employing
26,779 people
17,795 Latino-owned businesses with sales and receipts of $9.7 billion and employing
23,051 people
37,373 Asian-owned businesses with sales and receipts of $12.3 billion and employing
71,421 people (Immigration Policy Center, 2014)
Unauthorized workers are also important to the Pacific Northwests economy. According to
an estimate by the Perryman Group, if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from the
region, Idaho would lose $1.4 billion in economic activity, $506 million in gross state product,
and approximately 8,700 jobs. Oregon would lose $10 billion in economic activity, $4 billion
in gross state product, and more than 55,000 jobs; and Washington would lose $46 billion in
economic activity, $17 billion in gross state product, and over 200,000 jobs (Perryman Group,
2008). Unauthorized workers are notoriously underpaid, and are among the most vulnerable
to living in ALICE and poverty households.
135
And in Washington, there were:
The availability of low-skilled immigrant workers, such as child care providers and
housecleaners, has enabled higher-income American women to work more and to pursue
careers while having children (Furman and Gray, 2012). However, job opportunities and
wages need to be sufficient to continue to attract these workers.
RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY

As the population in the Pacific Northwest grows, it is also increasing in diversity, and
is forecast to increase at an even faster rate in the next two decades, primarily through
international migration. Aging will have an impact on the ethnic composition of the Pacific
Northwests workforce as well. As older residents retire in the next two decades, a lower
percentage of the remaining working-age population will be White and a higher percentage
will be Hispanic and Asian. These younger and more racially and ethnically diverse cohorts
will make up an increasing share of the labor force over the next two decades and beyond.
As increases in immigration expand the existing diversity of the U.S. population, issues of
racism and discrimination are becoming even more prominent in the national conversation.
The recent spotlight on racial discrimination in the legal system, due to extensive media
coverage of police-involved shootings of Black men in Ferguson, Missouri and beyond, has
brought issues of racism to a high pitch across the country. With national attitudes on racism
changing, the country is forced to confront the lack of change in many of the institutional
barriers faced by Blacks and Hispanics.
As increases
in immigration
expand the existing
diversity of the
U.S. population,
issues of racism
and discrimination
are becoming even
more prominent
in the national
conversation.
Recent reports have identified a wide range of structural impediments to equity in the legal
system, health care, housing, education, and jobs. While economic fortunes range widely
within and across racial and ethnic groups, nowhere are the effects of institutional racism felt
more strongly than among households below the ALICE Threshold (Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights, 2000; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2015; Goldrick-Rab,
Kelchen, and Houle, 2014; Sum and Khatiwada, 2010).
Asian Population
Overall, the Asian population in the U.S. has felt the effects of racial discrimination less than
other groups, at least financially. The median education, employment, and asset levels of
Asians are much closer to or even above those of the White population. This was not always
the case; for Asians who came to the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries, legal
and cultural barriers limited opportunities for education, employment, and home ownership,
and many experienced internment and loss of property during World War II. With the repeal
of discriminatory laws, new opportunities for Asians emerged. A sizable Asian population
is now third generation or more, and for these groups, like all recent immigrant groups, the
longer they have resided in the U.S., the higher their income.
In terms of immigrants who have come from Asia since 2010, they have a wide range of
economic circumstances, from those with graduate degrees to refugees. Asian immigrants
are the most educated of any racial/ethnic minority group in the U.S.; 65 percent of Asians
have a college degree or higher, compared to only 16 percent of Hispanic immigrants. Higher
levels of education qualify many for employment-based visas. In addition, the majority of
Asian immigrants have a family connection in the U.S., so that upon arrival they have more
resources to facilitate education and employment opportunities. The economic success of
these immigrants masks the less fortunate conditions of the smaller group of Asian refugees
or asylum-seekers (20 percent) who arrive with little wealth and education (Ahmad and
Weller, 2014; Pew Research Center, 2013).
136
Economic Disparities
While ALICE households consist of all races and ethnicities, economic disparities in race and
ethnicity continue to be marked in the Pacific Northwest for Black and Hispanic communities.
Because Whites are the regions largest demographic group, there are many more White
households struggling than households of any other race. But the drastic differences by race
and ethnicity in the median levels presented below clearly show how hard it is for Black and
Hispanic households to achieve financial stability. These differences start with education,
then employment, and extend to income and the ability to accumulate wealth.
Employment
Employment and wage differences between Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks
are especially pronounced across the Pacific Northwest. In 2014 in Idaho, the
unemployment rate for Whites was 4.6 percent, while for Hispanics it was 8.1
percent. In Oregon, the unemployment rate for Whites was 6.8 percent and for
Asians was 4.4 percent, but for Blacks it was 13.6 percent and for Hispanics it was
9.6 percent. In Washington, the unemployment rate for Whites was 5.6 percent and
for Asians was 4.9 percent, while for Blacks it was 13.8 percent and for Hispanics it
was 9 percent (BLS, 2013).
Income
In terms of earnings, the median earnings for Black workers are 25 percent less than
White workers in Idaho and Washington and 40 percent less in Oregon. Similarly, the
median earnings for Hispanic workers are 21 percent less than for White workers in
Idaho, 44 percent less in Oregon, and 64 percent less in Washington. On the other
hand, the median earnings for Asian workers are only 2 percent less than for White
workers in Idaho, and actually 10 percent higher in Oregon and 5 percent higher in
Washington (American Community Survey, 2013) (Figure 50).
Across the region,

minorities and
low-income
students performed
lower on math and
reading test scores
throughout K-12,
and as a result had
lower high school
graduation rates
all of which makes
them more likely
to live in poverty or
ALICE households
as adults.
137
Education
As Section VI explained, one area of particular and ongoing concern for the Pacific
Northwests ALICE households is the achievement gap in the Pacific Northwests
public schools. Across the region, minorities and low-income students performed
lower on math and reading test scores throughout K-12, and as a result had lower
high school graduation rates all of which makes them more likely to live in poverty
or ALICE households as adults. In addition to structural issues of school funding and
residential segregation that feed the achievement gap, current research also shows
that academic success is deeply tied to family resources, especially access to books,
high-quality child care, and other goods and services that foster the stimulating
environment necessary for cognitive development (Bradbury, Corak, Waldfogel and
Washbrook, 2015).
Figure 50.
Median Earnings by Race and Ethnicity, Pacific Northwest, 2013
Fig 50 Median Earn by R-E-I PNW 2013
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
Idaho
Oregon
White
Hispanic
Black
Asian
White
Hispanic
Black
Asian
$0
White
$5,000
Black
$10,000
Hispanic
$15,000
Asian
Median Earnings
$40,000
Washington
Assets
With less income,

it is harder to save
and build assets, so
it is not surprising
that the challenges
facing many ALICE
households are
amplified by race.
138
With less income, it is harder to save and build assets, so it is not surprising that the
challenges facing many ALICE households are amplified by race. Blacks and Hispanics
face racial barriers to wealth accumulation including difficulty buying a home in a popular
neighborhood, accessing quality financial services including a mortgage, and earning
a college degree. While attitudes towards race have greatly improved over the last few
decades, the racial disparities that remain indicate a deeper cause. A report from the Institute
on Assets and Social Policy (IASP) at Brandeis University found that the gap in household
wealth that now exists along racial lines in the U.S. reflects policies and institutional practices
that create different opportunities for Whites and Blacks, and that personal ambition and
behavioral choices are but a small part of the equation (Mishel, Bivens, Gould, and Shierholz,
2012; Shapiro, Meschede, Osoro, 2013; Oliver and Shapiro, 2006; Cramer, 2012).
The median net worth of Black families was $6,314 in 2011 and for Hispanic families was
$7,683, compared to the median net worth of White families at $89,537 and Asian families at
$89,339. The gap is most stark in percent of households who own assets. Most households
own a vehicle and have interest-earning assets at financial institutions, but there is a still
a significant gap by race, with White and Asian families more likely to own these assets
(Figure 51). The gap in homeownership is especially important as that is the most common
way to accumulate savings across the U.S. In 2011, 69 percent of White families owned a
home, while 59 percent of Asian families, 47 percent of Hispanic families, and 44 percent of
Black families also did. For homeowners, there is even a pronounced gap in the amount of
equity by race: the median amount of equity for a White homeowner is $85,000, for a Black
homeowner is $50,000, and for an Hispanic homeowner is $47,000 (U.S. Census, 2011).
Figure 51.
Percent of Households Owning Vehicles, Financial Assets, and their Own
Home, by Race and Ethnicity, U.S., 2011
Motor Vehicles
Fig 51 Pct HHs Own Car by Race PNW
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
White Alone
Asian Alone
Hispanic Orgin
Black Alone
Financial Institutions
Fig 51 Pct HHs Own Assets by Race PNW
100%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
White Alone
Asian Alone
Hispanic Orgin
Black Alone
Source: U.S. Census, 2011.
139
90%
Own Home
Fig 51 Pct HHs Own Home by Race PNW
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
White Alone
Asian Alone
Hispanic Orgin
Black Alone
More than 44
percent of White
and Asian families
have a 401K
savings plan, while
32 percent of Black
families and 26
percent of Hispanic
families do.
Less than half of all households have investment assets, but even among these types of
assets there are large differences by race and ethnicity. More than 44 percent of White and
Asian families have a 401K savings plan, while 32 percent of Black families and 26 percent of
Hispanic families do. Similarly, one-third of White and Asian families have an IRA account,
while less than 11 percent of Black and Hispanic families do; and more than 22 percent of
White and Asian families have stocks or mutual funds, while less than 6 percent of Black and
Hispanic families do (Figure 52) (U.S. Census, 2011). With such a different base, Blacks and
Hispanics are much less able to build assets for the future.
Figure 52.
Percent Households Holding Financial Assets, by Race and Ethnicity,
U.S., 2011
Fig 52 Pct HHs w Fin Assets by Race PNW
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
140
White Alone
Asian Alone
401K Savings Plan
IRA Accounts
Hispanic Origin
Stocks and Mutual Funds
Black Alone
Own Business
Ultimately, these issues of race, ethnicity, immigration, and financial stability are interrelated
and will continue to be in the decades to come. Though minorities are only a small portion of
the current Pacific Northwest population, their numbers are increasing, and these issues of
financial stability and equity will become more problematic both for them and for the region if
not addressed. Findings by the National Center for Children in Poverty consistently show that
determining factors for whether children under 18 years old live in poverty and in low-income
families include parental education, employment, and race/ethnicity (Jiang, Ekono, and
Skinner, 2015). For this reason, trends including the predominance of low-wage jobs and the
persistence of institutional racism have serious implications for the next generation.
NATURAL DISASTERS
The Pacific Northwest faces a host of environmental issues, including floods, earthquakes,
droughts, and wildfires. The effects of climate change will include global mean sea level rise,
temperature increases, and more frequent and intense storm events. Most commonly, the
focus in discussions of climate change is on the economy and the cost of loss of property
or business interruption, or how infrastructure highways, bridges, public transportation,
coastal ports and waterways all will be impacted (U.S. Department of Transportation,
2014). But individual families will also be greatly impacted. Without resources to prepare
for or recover from inevitable disasters, ALICE households are more vulnerable to natural
disasters than households with higher incomes.
In fact, natural disasters are one reason why many households fall below the ALICE
Threshold. With no savings to cover even minor damage to their home or car, many
households have no way to pay for additional bills. Their situation can become even more
precarious if they work in hourly paid jobs and are forced to miss work, running the risk of
either missing paychecks or losing their jobs as a result. More fundamentally, the housing
that ALICE households can afford is often less expensive because it is located in floodprone areas. With a tight budget, most ALICE households cannot afford insurance or even
preventative maintenance (Hanak, 2014; Hoopes, 2013; Cooley, Moore, Heberger, and
Allen, 2012). In addition, households earning below the ALICE Threshold are much less
likely to have the resources to recover, such as savings to cover lost wages and emergency
expenses, or insurance to cover damage.
Without resources
to prepare for
or recover from
inevitable disasters,
ALICE households
are more vulnerable
to natural disasters
than households
with higher
incomes.
The most common forms of disasters occur throughout the Pacific Northwest but are not
high-risk for loss of life or economic activity; they include avalanches, landslides, wildland
fires, severe storms (including any combination of hail, snow, wind, lightning, or a tornado),
and a volcanic eruption, though that is less likely (Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security, 2013;
State of Oregon, 2015; Washington State, 2013). While these are not large natural disasters
which impact a wide range of residents, it is important to note that even small events can
cause severe hardship for low-income households.
141
The areas that are vulnerable to specific disasters in the Pacific Northwest coastlines,
earthquake faults, river beds, volcanoes are well known and well documented. But
development has continued in many of these areas nonetheless, and mitigation measures
are not always feasible.
More severe natural disasters across the Pacific Northwest are discussed below.
Earthquakes
There are literally thousands of earthquakes across the Pacific Northwest each year. In
Washington, according to Washington State Department of Natural Resources, over 1,000
earthquakes occur annually across the state. Though most are small and no lives are lost,
the annualized property loss estimates are almost $400 billion (Washington Department
of Natural Resources, 2015). In the event of a catastrophic earthquake most likely in
western Oregon, including Portland, Salem, and Eugene, and along the Washington coast
and the greater Puget Sound Basin more than 10,000 people could be injured or killed,
and property damage could be in excess of $20 billion in Washington alone (State of Oregon,
2015; Washington State, 2013).
Drought
Severe or prolonged
drought can
impact the regions
public health,
infrastructure,
facilities, economy,
and environment.
142
Severe or prolonged drought can impact the regions public health, infrastructure, facilities,
economy, and environment. Extreme drought conditions are expected at least every five
years, with most of eastern Oregon and Washington experiencing severe or extreme drought
more frequently. The Oregon counties most vulnerable to droughts are Klamath and Baker.
While people are definitely affected by a drought, lives are usually not lost; however, the
two worst droughts in Washingtons history (1977 and 2001) resulted in thousands of job
losses in the power and agricultural industries as well as the mining, recreation, and fishing
industries. The estimated losses to the states economy due to these two drought events
were close to $500 million (State of Oregon, 2015; Washington State, 2013)
Flooding
Extreme precipitation and runoff-event flash floods occur throughout the region at all times
of the year. Flood events can lead to failures of dams, levees, or canals. Landslides are also
often caused by flooding.
Flooding occurs across the region on an annual basis. Disaster assistance for the 2012
floods in Washington alone totaled more than an estimated $40 million. Between 2004
and 2011, Washington State received $352 million in federal disaster assistance (U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 2012) The area most vulnerable to flooding in Idaho is
the Lower Boise Sub-Basin, which is home to hundreds of thousands of people who live in
or near the Boise River floodplain. The Oregon counties most vulnerable to floods based
on number of and dollar amount of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims are
Clackamas, Columbia, and Tillamook. The Washington watersheds ranked highest in risk
are the Lower Skagit, Puget Sound, and Strait of Georgia. King County is most vulnerable to
flooding based on the frequency of flooding that causes major damage, the percentage of the
county in floodplain, the number of flood insurance policies currently in effect, the number of
flood insurance claims paid, the number of repetitive flood loss properties, and the number of
severe repetitive loss properties. With continued growth of industry and towns in and around
these areas, property damage is estimated to rise with each subsequent flood (Idaho Bureau
of Homeland Security, 2013; State of Oregon, 2015; Washington State, 2013).
Tsunamis
The entire Oregon-Washington coast is at risk from distant and local tsunamis. Distant
tsunamis caused by earthquakes on the Pacific Rim strike the coast frequently but have
not caused significant damage or loss of life. Local tsunamis caused by a local earthquake
happen much less frequently but could cause catastrophic damage and great loss of life.
Researchers predict a 10 to 14 percent chance that a big tsunami could occur in the next 50
years (State of Oregon, 2015; Washington State, 2013).
These investments would make a big difference to ALICE families, especially those hourly
paid workers who do not earn wages when an earthquake closes their place of employment
or a landslide prevents them from getting to work. In terms of individual mitigation efforts,
for many ALICE families, the cost of mitigation winterizing a house or car, even basic
maintenance is not possible on low wages and no savings. Because of this, they are
more likely to sustain property damage from a winter storm or have a car break down in bad
weather.
VOTING
With the next Presidential election in November 2016, questions arise about ALICEs voice
at the voting booth, especially in light of headlines about the voting rates of lower-income
households, such as Rich Americans are Nearly Twice as Likely to Vote as the Poor
(Kavoussi, 2013). Analysis of historical data reinforces this view, such as the U.S. Census
report that highlights the demographic trend that voting rates were highest for Americans 65
years and older, non-Hispanic Whites, individuals with high levels of education, and those
with relatively high incomes (File, 2015).
While rates are higher for those groups, the majority of ALICE households do vote and
ALICE households make up a sizable voting demographic. In fact, nationally, those living in
households with income below $50,000 per year (near the average ALICE Threshold) vote at
only slightly lower rates than wealthier households: in the last presidential election in 2012,
68 percent were registered to vote compared to 76 percent of households with income above
$50,000, and 56 percent reported voting compared to 67 percent of households with income
The aggregate
cost of mitigation
against
earthquakes,
drought, and
flooding and
tsunamis is
enormous, but it
is only a small
percentage of the
cost of business
interruption and
damage to homes,
businesses, and
infrastructure from
a disaster.
143
The aggregate cost of mitigation against earthquakes, drought, and flooding and tsunamis
is enormous, but it is only a small percentage of the cost of business interruption and
damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure from a disaster. For example, the Oregon
Department of Transportation estimates that an investment of $1.8 billion in bridge and
highway strengthening and landslide mitigation would avoid disaster losses of $84 billion
(Knudson and Bettinardi, 2013).
above $50,000. And ALICE voters represent a substantial block of the electorate, accounting
for 30 percent of those registered and 28 percent of those who voted in the 2012 presidential
election (U.S. Census, 2015).
ALICE voters make up an even bigger block of the Oregon electorate. In the most recent
Oregon election, the 2014 Senate election, the largest voting block were voters with
household income below $50,000 per year, close to the ALICE Threshold. In fact, 44 percent
of voters had income less than $50,000; with half of those reporting income less than
$30,000 and the other half with income between $30,000 and $50,000. In comparison, 31
percent of voters had income between $50,000 and $100,000, and 25 percent had income
above $100,000 (NBCnews.com, 2014) (Figure 53).
Figure 53.
Oregon Voters by Annual Income, 2014 U.S. Senate Election
Fig 53 Oregon Voters by Annual Income PNW 2014
50%
45%
22%
40%
35%
Pecent of Voters
ALICE voters
represent a
substantial block
of the electorate,
accounting for 30
percent of those
registered and 28
percent of those
who voted in the
2012 presidential
election.
30%
$30K- $50K
31%
25%
20%
18%
Under $30K
$100k to
$200K
5%
0%
Under $50,000
Source: NBCnews.com, 2014
144
7%
22%
15%
10%
Over $200K
$50,000 to $99,000
Above $100,000
The percent of ALICE voters was also higher than the national average in Washington,
though not as great as in Oregon. (There were no exit polls for the 2014 elections in Idaho.)
In the most recent Washington election, the 2014 Senate election, the second largest voting
block were voters with household income below $50,000 per year, close to the ALICE
Threshold. In fact, 34 percent of voters had income less than $50,000; almost evenly divided
between those with income less than $30,000 and those with income between $30,000 and
$50,000. In comparison, 39 percent of voters had income between $50,000 and $100,000,
and 27 percent had income above $100,000 (NBCnews.com, 2014) (Figure 54).
Figure 54.
Washington Voters by Annual Income, 2014 U.S. Senate Election
Fig 54 Washington Voters by Annual Income PNW 2014
45%
40%
39%
35%
18%
Pecent of Voters
30%
25%
7%
20%
20%
15%
16%
10%
5%
0%
Under $50,000
$50,000 to $99,000
Above $100,000
145
Source: NBCnews.com, 2014
IMPROVING LIFE FOR ALICE: SHORT-,

MEDIUM-, AND LONG-TERM STRATEGIES
The United Way ALICE Report provides a way to look at strategies that support ALICE
families now and in the near future, as well as those that might help them become financially
stable in the longer term. There are two basic approaches that would make a difference:
increase ALICEs income, or reduce their expenses. Because ALICE families are part of
our economy and our communities, there is a wide range of interventions that can improve
ALICEs situation at different points in time. Many stakeholders have a role, including friends
and family, nonprofits, employers, and government (Figure 55).
Figure 55.
Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term Strategies to Assist ALICE Families
Strategies to Assist ALICE Families
Because ALICE
families are part of
our economy and our
communities, there
is a wide range
of interventions
that can improve
ALICEs situation at
different points
in time.
146
SHORT-TERM
MEDIUM-TERM
LONG-TERM
Friends and family
Temporary housing
Food
Rides
Child care
Caregiving for ill/
elderly relatives
Loans
Support to access
good employers
Nonprofits
Temporary housing
Food pantries
Utility assistance
Home repair
Tax preparation
Caregiver respite
Subsidized child care
Loans and affordable

financial products
Support to access
good employers
Employers
Paid days off

Transportation
assistance
Regular work schedule Career paths

Full-time opportunities Mentoring
Higher wages
Benefits
Flex-time
Telecommuting
HR resources for
caregivers
On-site health
services,
presentations,
wellness incentives
Government
Attract higher-skilled
Quality, affordable
TANF
jobs
housing, child care,
Child care and housing
education, health care, Strengthen
subsidies
infrastructure
transportation, and
Educational vouchers
financial products
and charter school
Reduced student loan
options
burden
Social Security credit
for caregivers
Tax credit for
caregivers
Efforts to assist ALICE and poverty households in supporting themselves can be broken
down into short-, medium-, and long-term actions. Short-term intervention by family,
employers, nonprofits, and government throughout the Pacific Northwest can be essential to
supporting a household through a crisis and preventing a downward spiral to homelessness.
The chief value of short-term measures is in the stability that they provide. Food pantries,
TANF, utility assistance, emergency housing repairs, and child care subsidies all help
stabilize ALICE households, potentially preventing much larger future costs.
To permanently reduce the number of ALICE households, broader and more strategic action
is needed. For ALICE households to be able to support themselves, structural economic
changes are required to make the Pacific Northwest more affordable and provide better
income opportunities. The costs of basic necessities housing, child care, transportation,
food, and health care are high in the Pacific Northwest relative to the wages ALICE workers
earn. Broad improvement in financial stability could come from changes to the housing
market and the health care delivery system. Investments in transportation infrastructure,
affordable quality child care, and healthy living would also help.
An improvement in job opportunities, in the form of either an increase in the wages of
current low-wage jobs or an increase in the number of higher-paying jobs, would enable
ALICE households to afford to live near their work, build assets, and become financially
independent. For all workers in the Pacific Northwest to be able to afford the Household
Survival Budget, a significant number of jobs would need to raise their wages. In Idaho, this
would mean increasing the wages of 185,160 (out of 602,230) jobs to $11.54 per hour
for a family (for both working parents). In Oregon, the wages of 472,600 (out of 1.6
million) jobs would need to increase to $12.70 per hour; and in Washington, the wages
of 594,410 (out of 2.8 million) jobs would need to increase to $13.04 per hour. (No
changes would be required to enable a single adult to afford the Household Survival Budget
in the Pacific Northwest provided all low-wages jobs are full-time.)
The biggest impact on income opportunity would come through a substantial increase in the
number of medium- and high-skilled jobs in both the public and private sectors. Such a shift
would require an influx of new businesses and possibly new industries, as well as increased
education and training.
For ALICE
households to be
able to support
themselves,
structural economic
changes are
required to make the
Pacific Northwest
more affordable
and provide
better income
opportunities.
In expanding job opportunities, both the kind of job and the kind of employer matter. Across
industries, employers who can offer adequate wages and benefits, consistent schedules, job
security, and advancement potential can make a significant difference for ALICE households.
Ultimately, improvements in job opportunities and a decrease in the cost of household

essentials would enable ALICE households to afford to live near their work, build
assets, and become financially independent.
147
The extensive use of alternative financial services in the Pacific Northwest suggests that
more cost-effective financial resources, such as better access to savings, auto loans, and
sound microloans, would also help ALICE households become more financially stable.
APPENDIX A INCOME INEQUALITY

IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Gini Index, Pacific Northwest, 19792013
More Equal
Less Equal
48%
46%
44%
42%
40%
38%
1979
1989
Idaho
1999
Oregon
2009
2013
Washington
Source:
1979-1999
2009
2013
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/state/state4.html
https://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-2.pdf
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acsbr13-02.pdf
The Gini index is a measure of income inequality. It varies from 0 to 100 percent, where 0 indicates perfect
equality and 100 indicates perfect inequality (when one person has all the income). The distribution of income
in the Pacific Northwest has grown more unequal over time.
148
Income Distribution by Quintile in the Pacific Northwest, 2013

Idaho
Lowest
4%
Second
10%
Third
15%
Highest
48%
Fourth
23%
Income distribution is a tool to measure how income is divided within a population. In this case, the population is
divided into five groups or quintiles. In Idaho the top 20 percent of the population the highest quintile -- receives
48 percent of all income, while the bottom quintile earns only 4 percent. If five Idaho residents divided $100
according to the current distribution of income, the first person would get $48, the second would get $23, the
third, $15, the fourth, $10, and
the last $4.
Appx A Inc Dist by Quintile PNW 2013 OR
Oregon
Lowest
4%
Second
9%
Third
15%
Highest
49%
Fourth
23%
In Oregon the top 20 percent of the population the highest quintile -- receives 49 percent of all income, while the
bottom quintile earns only 4 percent. If five Oregon residents divided $100 according to the current distribution of
income, the first person would get $49, the second would get $23, the third, $15, the fourth, $9, and the last $4.
Lowest
4%
Second
9%
Third
15%
Highest
49%
Fourth
23%
In Washington, the top 20 percent of the population the highest quintile -- receives 49 percent of all income,
while the bottom quintile earns only 4 percent. If five Washington residents divided $100 according to the current
distribution of income, the first person would get $49, the second would get $23, the third, $15, the fourth, $9, and
the last $4.
149
Washington
APPENDIX B THE ALICE

THRESHOLD: METHODOLOGY
The ALICE Threshold determines how many households are struggling in a county based upon the Household
Survival Budget. Using the Household Survival Budgets for different household combinations, a pair of ALICE
Thresholds is developed for each county, one for households headed by someone younger than 65 years old
and one for households headed by someone 65 years and older.
For households headed by someone under 65 years old, the ALICE Threshold is calculated by adding
the Household Survival Budget for a family of four plus the Household Survival Budget for a single adult,
dividing by 5, and then multiplying by the average household size for households headed by someone
under 65 years old in each county.
The ALICE Threshold for households headed by someone 65 years old and over is calculated by
multiplying the Household Survival Budget for a single adult by the average senior household size in each
county.
The results are rounded to the nearest Census break ($30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $45,000, $50,000,
$60,000 or $75,000).
The number of ALICE households is calculated by subtracting the number of households in poverty as reported
by the American Community Survey (ACS), 20072013, from the total number of households below the ALICE
Threshold. The number of households in poverty by racial/ethnic categories is not reported by the ACS, so
when determining the number of ALICE households by race/ethnicity, the number of households earning less
than $15,000 per year is used as an approximation for households in poverty.
NOTE: ACS data for Pacific Northwest counties with populations over 65,000 are 1-year estimates; for
populations between 20,000 and 65,000, data are 3-year estimates; and for populations below 20,000, data are
5-year estimates. Because there was not a 5-year survey for 2007, the data for the least populated counties
(those not included in list below) is replaced with 2009 5-year data where possible. For statewide totals, the
2007 3-year state estimate is used as a base and breakdowns are based on the percentages of counties
reporting data.
For Idaho, in 2007 ACS data is available only for the 12 most populous counties (out of 44 counties):
Ada
Bonneville
Latah
Bannock
Canyon
Madison
Bingham
Cassia
Nez Perce
Bonner
Kootenai
Twin Falls
For Oregon, in 2007 ACS data is available only for the 24 most populous counties (out of 36 counties):
150
Benton
Deschutes
Lincoln
Tillamook
Clackamas
Douglas
Linn
Umatilla
Clatsop
Jackson
Malheur
Union
Columbia
Josephine
Marion
Wasco
Coos
Klamath
Multnomah
Washington
Curry
Lane
Polk
Yamhill
For Washington, in 2007 ACS data is available only for the 30 most populous counties (out of 39 counties):
Asotin
Douglas
King
Okanogan
Stevens
Benton
Franklin
Kitsap
Pacific
Thurston
Chelan
Grant
Kittitas
Pierce
Walla Walla
Clallam
Grays Harbor
Klickitat
Skagit
Whatcom
Clark
Island
Lewis
Snohomish
Whitman
Cowlitz
Jefferson
Mason
Spokane
Yakima
ALICE Threshold and ALICE Households by Race/Ethnicity and Age, Idaho, 2013
Ada
TOTAL HH
HH BELOW
ALICE
THRESHOLD
PERCENT HH BELOW AT - RACE/ETHNICITY
PERCENT
HH BELOW
AT - AGE
ALICE THRESHOLD
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Seniors
ALICE
Threshold
HH
under 65
years
ALICE
Threshold
- HH 65
years and
over
155,434
32%
28%
63%
43%
31%
30%
$40,000
$25,000
Adams
1,707
40%
NA
NA
73%
39%
44%
$30,000
$25,000
Bannock
30,265
38%
58%
58%
45%
36%
23%
$35,000
$25,000
Bear Lake
2,442
33%
0%
NA
14%
34%
35%
$35,000
$25,000
Benewah
3,888
40%
0%
42%
53%
38%
49%
$35,000
$30,000
Bingham
15,005
36%
37%
0%
48%
33%
42%
$40,000
$30,000
Blaine
9,205
35%
29%
NA
41%
32%
41%
$45,000
$35,000
Boise
2,994
39%
NA
23%
56%
37%
40%
$35,000
$25,000
Bonner
17,160
38%
44%
65%
32%
38%
33%
$35,000
$25,000
Bonneville
36,806
34%
28%
20%
55%
32%
32%
$40,000
$25,000
Boundary
4,144
43%
54%
NA
47%
44%
47%
$35,000
$25,000
Butte
1,022
42%
100%
100%
84%
40%
40%
$40,000
$25,000
Camas
464
42%
NA
NA
76%
40%
18%
$35,000
$30,000
Canyon
65,923
42%
54%
63%
55%
41%
33%
$40,000
$25,000
Caribou
2,644
36%
NA
NA
50%
35%
51%
$40,000
$30,000
Cassia
7,542
42%
0%
0%
67%
36%
49%
$40,000
$25,000
304
53%
NA
NA
70%
44%
33%
$35,000
$30,000
Clearwater
3,545
40%
0%
100%
13%
40%
58%
$35,000
$30,000
Custer
1,870
39%
NA
NA
48%
39%
53%
$35,000
$30,000
Elmore
9,737
36%
37%
28%
48%
35%
43%
$35,000
$25,000
Franklin
4,150
43%
100%
NA
67%
42%
35%
$45,000
$25,000
Fremont
4,549
39%
100%
NA
69%
35%
38%
$40,000
$30,000
Gem
6,323
39%
100%
NA
41%
37%
33%
$40,000
$25,000
Gooding
5,552
45%
NA
100%
65%
40%
40%
$40,000
$25,000
Idaho
6,534
40%
38%
100%
46%
39%
42%
$35,000
$25,000
Clark
151
IDAHO COUNTY
ALICE Threshold and ALICE Households by Race/Ethnicity and Age, Idaho, 2013
IDAHO COUNTY
TOTAL HH
HH BELOW
ALICE
THRESHOLD
PERCENT
HH BELOW
AT - AGE
ALICE THRESHOLD
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Seniors
ALICE
Threshold
HH
under 65
years
ALICE
Threshold
- HH 65
years and
over
Jefferson
8,038
35%
100%
100%
68%
32%
21%
$45,000
$25,000
Jerome
7,808
43%
NA
100%
61%
36%
37%
$40,000
$25,000
Kootenai
55,836
33%
38%
67%
35%
31%
28%
$40,000
$25,000
Latah
14,960
43%
56%
63%
43%
41%
32%
$35,000
$30,000
Lemhi
3,832
46%
100%
0%
70%
46%
48%
$30,000
$30,000
Lewis
1,660
47%
29%
NA
88%
47%
64%
$35,000
$30,000
Lincoln
1,617
48%
0%
NA
60%
45%
47%
$45,000
$30,000
Madison
10,569
59%
41%
95%
76%
58%
34%
$45,000
$25,000
Minidoka
7,033
41%
7%
100%
56%
37%
48%
$40,000
$30,000
Nez Perce
15,910
33%
35%
100%
74%
32%
38%
$35,000
$25,000
Oneida
1,579
47%
NA
NA
28%
47%
52%
$40,000
$30,000
Owyhee
3,911
62%
NA
NA
80%
56%
52%
$50,000
$25,000
Payette
7,968
40%
38%
NA
57%
38%
31%
$40,000
$25,000
Power
2,568
48%
NA
0%
76%
43%
30%
$45,000
$25,000
Shoshone
5,714
39%
25%
0%
21%
39%
46%
$30,000
$25,000
Teton
3,583
45%
NA
NA
59%
44%
31%
$50,000
$30,000
Twin Falls
28,811
38%
46%
59%
55%
35%
35%
$40,000
$25,000
Valley
3,519
34%
NA
NA
11%
34%
25%
$40,000
$25,000
Washington
3,938
46%
19%
NA
73%
43%
49%
$40,000
$25,000
ALICE Threshold and ALICE Households by Race/Ethnicity and Age, Oregon, 2013
OREGON
COUNTY
152
TOTAL HH
HH BELOW
ALICE
THRESHOLD
PERCENT
HH BELOW
AT - AGE
ALICE THRESHOLD
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Seniors
ALICE
Threshold
HH
under 65
years
ALICE
Threshold
- HH 65
years and
over
Baker
7,120
42%
0%
NA
79%
41%
46%
$35,000
$30,000
Benton
33,609
41%
53%
61%
56%
40%
33%
$40,000
$30,000
Clackamas
150,382
30%
23%
45%
50%
28%
35%
$45,000
$35,000
Clatsop
15,549
42%
40%
0%
61%
41%
42%
$40,000
$30,000
ALICE Threshold and ALICE Households by Race/Ethnicity and Age, Oregon, 2013
TOTAL HH
HH BELOW
ALICE
THRESHOLD
PERCENT
HH BELOW
AT - AGE
ALICE THRESHOLD
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Seniors
ALICE
Threshold
HH
under 65
years
ALICE
Threshold
- HH 65
years and
over
Columbia
18,781
39%
25%
58%
55%
38%
47%
$45,000
$35,000
Coos
25,814
47%
37%
66%
54%
47%
46%
$40,000
$30,000
Crook
8,974
45%
100%
NA
43%
45%
49%
$35,000
$30,000
Curry
10,413
41%
38%
0%
33%
40%
51%
$35,000
$30,000
Deschutes
65,065
41%
37%
50%
54%
40%
39%
$40,000
$30,000
Douglas
43,389
43%
33%
56%
58%
41%
38%
$40,000
$30,000
883
29%
NA
57%
25%
30%
41%
$30,000
$25,000
Grant
3,319
44%
NA
100%
15%
44%
43%
$35,000
$25,000
Harney
3,113
40%
75%
100%
53%
38%
38%
$35,000
$25,000
Hood River
8,174
40%
40%
0%
51%
39%
48%
$50,000
$35,000
Jackson
82,983
45%
47%
59%
56%
43%
49%
$40,000
$35,000
Jefferson
7,723
39%
75%
14%
65%
34%
26%
$40,000
$25,000
Josephine
34,517
48%
55%
37%
56%
48%
50%
$40,000
$30,000
Klamath
25,746
48%
29%
74%
59%
46%
44%
$40,000
$30,000
Lake
3,566
46%
67%
63%
48%
45%
55%
$30,000
$25,000
Lane
144,166
43%
56%
57%
54%
41%
40%
$40,000
$30,000
Lincoln
20,458
42%
63%
42%
42%
41%
39%
$40,000
$30,000
Linn
43,911
44%
57%
86%
62%
41%
37%
$45,000
$30,000
Malheur
10,322
56%
43%
65%
65%
55%
51%
$45,000
$30,000
Marion
114,077
43%
52%
60%
58%
39%
36%
$45,000
$30,000
Morrow
3,741
40%
100%
100%
53%
36%
43%
$45,000
$30,000
Multnomah
309,552
31%
34%
55%
50%
26%
32%
$35,000
$25,000
Polk
28,097
39%
56%
13%
52%
37%
34%
$45,000
$30,000
Sherman
827
35%
NA
0%
50%
35%
31%
$35,000
$25,000
Tillamook
9,576
47%
11%
71%
64%
46%
46%
$45,000
$30,000
Umatilla
26,943
37%
58%
83%
43%
39%
36%
$40,000
$25,000
Union
10,179
41%
75%
0%
77%
40%
44%
$35,000
$25,000
Wallowa
2,996
39%
NA
100%
58%
39%
38%
$35,000
$30,000
Wasco
9,485
49%
88%
0%
68%
47%
44%
$45,000
$30,000
203,665
33%
27%
41%
51%
31%
42%
$45,000
$35,000
Wheeler
625
33%
100%
NA
0%
34%
34%
$30,000
$25,000
Yamhill
35,454
40%
33%
55%
58%
36%
42%
$50,000
$35,000
Gilliam
Washington
153
OREGON
COUNTY
ALICE Threshold and ALICE Households by Race/Ethnicity and Age, Washington, 2013
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
PERCENT
HH
BELOW AT
- AGE
ALICE THRESHOLD
ALICE
ALICE
Threshold
Threshold HH
HH 65 years
under 65
and over
years
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Seniors
Adams
5,738
47%
76%
NA
59%
36%
47%
$45,000
$25,000
Asotin
9,270
37%
46%
100%
54%
36%
29%
$35,000
$25,000
Benton
68,334
30%
22%
33%
51%
28%
38%
$40,000
$30,000
Chelan
27,665
36%
41%
100%
42%
35%
41%
$40,000
$25,000
Clallam
30,606
38%
57%
56%
66%
34%
34%
$40,000
$30,000
Clark
158,778
33%
30%
56%
53%
31%
31%
$45,000
$30,000
Columbia
1,651
38%
40%
NA
72%
36%
38%
$35,000
$25,000
Cowlitz
38,483
34%
47%
55%
57%
32%
28%
$40,000
$25,000
Douglas
14,138
34%
45%
100%
62%
28%
28%
$45,000
$25,000
Ferry
2,951
49%
19%
NA
41%
47%
43%
$40,000
$25,000
Franklin
24,434
42%
31%
76%
60%
27%
40%
$50,000
$30,000
Garfield
970
30%
100%
NA
NA
29%
41%
$40,000
$25,000
Grant
29,888
44%
62%
82%
57%
39%
48%
$45,000
$30,000
Grays Harbor
26,815
42%
46%
65%
56%
42%
41%
$40,000
$25,000
Island
32,990
32%
37%
48%
37%
31%
30%
$40,000
$30,000
Jefferson
13,285
40%
41%
7%
59%
39%
37%
$40,000
$30,000
King
819,434
25%
25%
53%
40%
20%
26%
$40,000
$25,000
Kitsap
97,854
23%
18%
43%
35%
21%
17%
$35,000
$20,000
Kittitas
16,409
43%
69%
24%
62%
41%
36%
$40,000
$30,000
Klickitat
7,829
39%
0%
100%
60%
38%
39%
$40,000
$25,000
Lewis
29,040
43%
20%
59%
53%
41%
36%
$40,000
$30,000
Lincoln
4,457
34%
0%
100%
43%
34%
30%
$40,000
$25,000
Mason
23,395
38%
29%
84%
57%
36%
37%
$40,000
$30,000
Okanogan
16,231
41%
15%
74%
52%
37%
38%
$35,000
$25,000
Pacific
9,165
42%
67%
19%
51%
40%
45%
$35,000
$25,000
Pend Oreille
5,484
41%
0%
0%
47%
40%
41%
$35,000
$25,000
302,287
34%
40%
49%
49%
31%
35%
$45,000
$30,000
San Juan
7,753
32%
37%
17%
57%
31%
32%
$35,000
$35,000
Skagit
45,234
36%
47%
31%
57%
33%
37%
$45,000
$30,000
Skamania
4,452
33%
31%
71%
10%
34%
38%
$40,000
$30,000
Pierce
154
TOTAL HH
HH BELOW
ALICE
THRESHOLD
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
TOTAL HH
HH BELOW
ALICE
THRESHOLD
PERCENT
HH
BELOW AT
- AGE
ALICE THRESHOLD
ALICE
ALICE
Threshold
Threshold HH
HH 65 years
under 65
and over
years
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Seniors
Snohomish
270,616
33%
31%
45%
47%
32%
44%
50,000
35,000
Spokane
186,456
37%
50%
59%
48%
36%
30%
40,000
25,000
Stevens
17,586
34%
40%
42%
38%
33%
32%
$35,000
$25,000
Thurston
99,815
35%
33%
29%
38%
33%
38%
$45,000
$35,000
Wahkiakum
1,715
38%
0%
NA
100%
38%
34%
$40,000
$25,000
Walla Walla
21,413
45%
9%
35%
63%
43%
44%
$45,000
$30,000
Whatcom
78,330
41%
47%
67%
55%
39%
36%
$45,000
$30,000
Whitman
17,340
52%
69%
78%
71%
48%
27%
$40,000
$25,000
Yakima
79,742
46%
37%
76%
61%
37%
33%
$45,000
$25,000
155
ALICE Threshold and ALICE Households by Race/Ethnicity and Age, Washington, 2013
APPENDIX C THE HOUSEHOLD

SURVIVAL BUDGET: METHODOLOGY
AND SOURCES
The Household Survival Budget provides the foundation for a threshold for economic survival in each county.
The Budget is comprised of the actual cost of five household essentials plus a 10 percent contingency and
taxes for each county. The minimum level is used in each category for 2007, 2010, and 2013. The line items
and sources are reviewed below.
HOUSING
The housing budget is based on HUDs Fair Market Rent (40th percentile of gross rents) for an efficiency
apartment for a single person, a one-bedroom apartment for a head of household with a child, and a twobedroom apartment for a family of three or more. The rent includes the sum of the rent paid to the owner plus
any utility costs incurred by the tenant. Utilities include electricity, gas, water/sewer, and trash removal services,
but not telephone service. If the owner pays for all utilities, then the gross rent equals the rent paid to the
owner.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
CHILD CARE
The child care budget is based on the average annual cost of care for one infant and one preschooler in
Registered Family Child Care Homes (the least expensive child care option). Data are compiled by local child
care resource and referral agencies and reported to the National Association of Child Care Resource and
Referral Agencies (NACCRRA, nationally known as Child Care Aware). When data is missing, state averages
are used, though missing data may mean child care facilities are not available in those counties and residents
may be forced to use facilities in neighboring counties.
Sources:
Dampson, Karen, 2010 Annual Report, Washington State Child Care Resource & Referral Network, 2011.
http://wa.childcareaware.org/about-us/annual-reports/2010-annual-report-20-years
Dampson, Karen, 2012 Child Care Data Report, Child Care Aware of Washington, January 31, 2013.
http://wa.childcareaware.org/about-us/data/2012-data-folder/2012-annual-supply-demand-report
Dampson, Karen, 2013 Data Report: Trends, Child Care Supply, Cost of Care, & Demand for Referrals, Child
Care Aware of Washington, January 31, 2014.
http://wa.childcareaware.org/about-us/data/2013-data-folder/2013-annual-data-report
Dampson, Karen, 2014 Data Report: Trends, Child Care Supply, Cost of Care, & Demand for Referrals, Child
Care Aware of Washington, January 31, 2015.
http://wa.childcareaware.org/about-us/data/2014-data-folder/2014-annual-data-report
Dampson, Karen, email correspondence regarding 2007 data, May 22, 2015.
Email correspondence with Mary Lou Lambert, Senior Management Analyst, State of Idaho, June 2015.
156
Grobe, Deana, and Roberta B. Weber, 2008 Oregon Child Care Market Price Study, Prepared for Oregon
Department of Human Services, 2008.
http://health.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/sbhs/pdf/2008-Child-Care-Market-Price-Study.pdf
http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/assistance/CHILD-CARE/Documents/2010marketpricestudy.pdf
http://health.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/sbhs/pdf/oregon-child-care-market-price-study-2012.pdf
Grobe, Deana and Roberta B. Weber, 2014 Oregon Child Care Market Price Study, Prepared for Oregon
Department of Human Services, October 2014.
http://www.oregon.gov/OCC/OCC%20Forms/Document/CCMR%202014%20Report_Final.pdf
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Local Market Rates for the Idaho Child Care Program, Idaho Child
Care Program, November 2013.
http://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Portals/0/FoodCashAssistance/ICCPLocalMarketRates.pdf
Ohio State University Statistical Consulting Service, 2013 Idaho Child Care Market Rate Analysis, Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, June 6, 2013.
http://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Portals/0/FoodCashAssistance/ICCPMarketRateReport2013.pdf
FOOD
The food budget is based on the Thrifty Level (lowest of four levels) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home, U.S. Average, June 2007. State food budget numbers are
adjusted for regional price variation, Regional Variation Nearly Double Inflation Rate for Food Prices, Food
CPI, Price, and Expenditures, USDA, 2009.
Source: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/
FoodPlans/2007/CostofFoodJun07.pdf
TRANSPORTATION
Costs are adjusted for household size (divided by CES household size except for single-adult households,
which are divided by two). In the counties where 8 percent or more of the population uses public transportation,
the cost for public transportation is used; in those counties where less than 8 percent of the population uses
public transportation, the cost for auto transportation is used instead. Public transportation includes bus, trolley,
subway, elevated train, railroad, and ferryboat. Car expenses include gas and motor oil and other vehicle
maintenance expenses, but not lease payments, car loan payments, or major repairs.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxmsa.htm#y0607
157
The transportation budget is calculated using average annual expenditures for transportation by car and by
public transportation from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES). Since the CES
is reported by metropolitan areas and states, the Pacific Northwests counties were matched with the most
local level.
HEALTH CARE
The health care budget includes the nominal out-of-pocket health care spending, medical services, prescription
drugs, and medical supplies using the average annual health expenditure reported in the CES. Since the CES
is reported by metropolitan areas and states, the Pacific Northwests counties were matched with the most
local level. Costs are adjusted for household size (divided by CES household size except for single-adult
households, which are divided by two). The health care budget does not include the cost of health insurance.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxmsa.htm#y0607
MISCELLANEOUS
The Miscellaneous category includes 10 percent of the total budget (including taxes) to cover cost overruns.
TAXES
The tax budget includes both federal and state income taxes where applicable, as well as Social Security and
Medicare taxes. These rates include standard federal and state deductions and exemptions, as well as the
federal Child Tax Credit and the Child and Dependent Care Credit. Washington has no income tax. In Idaho
and Oregon, income tax rates remained flat from 2007 to 2013, but the income brackets increased slightly.
Federal taxes include income tax using standard deductions and exemptions for each household type. The
federal tax brackets increased slightly from 2007 to 2010 to 2013, though rates stayed the same. Federal taxes
also include the employee portions of Social Security and Medicare at 6.2 and 1.45 percent respectively. The
employee Social Security tax holiday rate of 4.2 percent was incorporated for 2012.
Sources:
Federal
Internal Revenue Service 1040: Individual Income Tax, Forms and Instructions, 2007, 2010, and 2013.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2013.pdf
Idaho
Idaho State Tax Commission, Idaho 2007 individual income tax forms and instructions, 2007.
http://tax.idaho.gov/forms/EIN00046_09-27-2007.pdf
Idaho State Tax Commission, Idaho 2013 individual income tax forms and instructions,2013.
Idaho State Tax Commission, Individual Income Tax Rate Schedule 2010, Withholding Formula (Effective Pay
Period 8, 2008 through 2010), 2010.
http://www.halfpricesoft.com/2010/taxrate-Idaho-2010.asp
Idaho State Tax Commission, Individual Income Tax Rate Schedule, 2011-2015, 2015.
https://tax.idaho.gov/i-1110.cfm
158
Oregon
Oregon Legislative Review Office, 2007 Oregon Public Finance: Basic Facts, Research Report #1-07,
January 2007.
http://library.state.or.us/repository/2010/201012291426293/2007.pdf
NOTE: Rates stayed the same until 2011. Oregon Legislative Review Office, 2009 Oregon Public Finance:
Basic Facts, Research Report #1-09, January 2009.
http://library.state.or.us/repository/2010/201012291426293/2009.pdf
January 2012.
http://library.state.or.us/repository/2010/201012291426293/comm_lro_2012_publications_reports_Basic_
Facts_2012.pdf
January 2013.
http://library.state.or.us/repository/2010/201012291426293/comm_lro_2013BasicFacts.pdf
Washington does not have state income tax
HOUSEHOLD SURVIVAL BUDGET
159
The Household Survival Budget for all household variations by county can be found at:
http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice
APPENDIX D THE HOUSEHOLD

STABILITY BUDGET: METHODOLOGY
AND SOURCES
The Household Stability Budget represents the cost of living in each county at a modest but sustainable level,
in contrast to the basic level of the Household Survival Budget. The Household Stability Budget is comprised
of the actual cost of five household essentials plus a 10 percent savings item and a 10 percent contingency
item, as well as taxes for each county. The data builds on the sources from the Household Survival Budget;
differences are reviewed below.
HOUSING
The housing budget is based on HUDs median rent for a one-bedroom apartment, rather than an efficiency at
the Fair Market Rent at the 40th percentile, for a single adult; the basis for a head of household with children
is a two-bedroom apartment; and housing for a family is based on the American Community Surveys median
monthly owner costs for those with a mortgage, instead of the Household Survival Budgets rent for a twobedroom apartment at the 40th percentile. Real estate taxes are included in the tax category below.
CHILD CARE
The child care budget is based on the cost of a fully licensed and accredited child care center. These costs are
typically more than 30 percent higher than the cost of registered home-based child care used in the Household
Survival Budget. Data is compiled by local child care resource and referral agencies and reported to the
National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA, nationally known as Child
Care Aware).
FOOD
The food budget is based on the USDAs Moderate Level Food Plans for the cost of food at home (second of
four levels), adjusted for regional variation, plus the average cost of food away from home as reported by the
Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES).
TRANSPORTATION
Where there is public transportation, family transportation expenses include public transportation for one adult
and gas and maintenance for one car; costs for a single adult include public transportation for one, and half the
cost of gas and maintenance for one car. Where there is no public transportation, family expenses include costs
for leasing one car and for gas and maintenance for two cars, and single-adult costs are for leasing, gas and
maintenance for one car as reported by the CES.
160
HEALTH CARE
The health care costs are based on employer-sponsored health insurance at a low-wage firm as reported by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Also included
is out-of-pocket health care spending as reported in the CES.
Sources: http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_2/2012/tiic2.htm
http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_7/2012/tviid2.htm
MISCELLANEOUS
The Miscellaneous category includes 10 percent of the total (not including taxes or savings) to cover cost
overruns.
SAVINGS
The Household Stability Budget also includes a 10 percent line item for savings, a category that is essential
for sustainability. This provides a cushion for emergencies and possibly allows a household to invest in their
education, house, car, and health as needed.
TAXES
Taxes increase for the Household Stability Budget, but the methodology is the same as in the Household Survival
Budget. The one difference is that a mortgage deduction is included for families who are now homeowners. In
addition, while real estate taxes were included in rent in the Household Survival Budget, they are added to the tax
bill here for homeowners.
HOUSEHOLD STABILITY BUDGET

Average Household Stability Budget, Pacific Northwest, 2013
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
$643
$1,130
$-
$962
Food
$357
$1,098
Transportation
$357
$1,100
Health Care
$202
$1,037
Miscellaneous
$156
$533
Savings
$156
$533
Taxes
$285
$765
Monthly Total
$2,155
$7,158
ANNUAL TOTAL
$25,860
$85,896
Hourly Wage
$12.93
$42.95
Housing
Child Care
161

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
$718
$1,296
$-
$1,262
Food
$357
$1,098
Transportation
$353
$1,091
Health Care
$202
$1,037
Miscellaneous
$163
$578
Savings
$163
$578
Taxes
$292
$906
Monthly Total
$2,248
$7,847
ANNUAL TOTAL
$26,976
$94,164
Hourly Wage
$13.49
$47.08
Housing
Child Care

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
$781
$1,360
$-
$1,441
Food
$357
$1,099
Transportation
$351
$1,080
Health Care
$202
$1,036
Miscellaneous
$169
$601
Savings
$169
$601
Taxes
$310
$977
Monthly Total
$2,338
$8,195
ANNUAL TOTAL
$28,056
$98,340
Hourly Wage
$14.03
$49.17
Housing
Child Care
The Household Stability Budget for all household variations by county can be found at:
http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/united-way-alice
162
APPENDIX E THE ALICE INCOME

ASSESSMENT: METHODOLOGY AND
SOURCES
The ALICE Income Assessment is a tool to measure how much households need to reach the ALICE Threshold
compared to their actual income, which includes earned income as well as cash government assistance and
in-kind public assistance. The Unfilled Gap is calculated by totaling the income needed to reach the Threshold,
then subtracting earned income and all government and nonprofit spending. Household earnings include
wages, dividends, and Social Security.
There are many resources available to low-income families. The ones included here are those that benefit
households below the ALICE Threshold, not resources that benefit society in general. For example, spending
on free and reduced-price school lunches is included; public education budgets are not. In addition, the
assessment includes only programs that directly help ALICE families meet the basic Household Survival
Budget, such as TANF and Medicaid; it does not include programs that assist low-income families in broader
ways, such as subsidies to attend college. Data is for 2013 unless otherwise noted.
FEDERAL SPENDING
Social Services
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Provides cash assistance to low-income families.
Social Security Disability Insurance Provides funds to offset the living costs of disabled workers who
formerly contributed to Social Security but are not old enough to draw it.
Social Services Block Grant Funds programs that allow communities to achieve or maintain economic
self-sufficiency to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency on social services.
Child Care and Education

Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Education supplementary education services to help
provide education continuity for children and youths in state-run institutions for juveniles and in adult
correctional institutions so that these youths can make successful transitions to school or employment
once they are released.
Rural and Low-Income Schools Program provide financial assistance to rural districts to assist them in
meeting their states definition of adequate yearly progress.
Homeless Children and Youth Education supports an office for coordination of the education of
homeless children and youths in each state, which gathers comprehensive information about homeless
children and youths and the impediments they must overcome to regularly attend school.
163
Head Start Provides money for agencies to promote school readiness for low-income children by
providing health, education, nutritional, and social services to the children and their parents.
Food
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) Provide money to lowincome households to supplement their food budgets.
School Lunch Program Subsidizes lunches for low-income children in schools or residential
institutions.
School Breakfast Program Provides funds to schools to offset the costs of providing a nutritious
breakfast and reimburses the costs of free and reduced-price meals.
Child and Adult Care Food Program Provides grants to non-residential care centers, after-school
programs, and emergency shelters to provide nutritious meals and snacks.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Provides pregnant
women and children through age five with money for nutritious foods and referrals to health services.
Housing
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Tenant-based rental assistance for low-income families; includes
Fair Share Vouchers and Welfare-to-Work Vouchers, the Section 8 Rental Voucher program (14.855), or
the former Section 8 Certificate program (14.857).
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Provides funds to nonprofits to help lowincome homeowners afford heating and cooling costs. The program may give money directly to a
homeowner or give to an energy supplier on the homeowners behalf.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Provide annual grants to develop decent housing and
a suitable living environment and to expand economic opportunities. Not less than 70 percent of CDBG
funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
HEALTH CARE
Medicaid Provides money to states, which they must match, to offer health insurance for low-income
residents. Also known as the Medical Assistance Program.
Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Provides funds to states to enable them to maintain and
expand child health assistance to uninsured, low-income children and, at a states discretion, to lowincome pregnant women and authorized immigrants.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

State spending on households below the ALICE Threshold includes public Assistance such as TANF and
other cash programs, Medicaid, Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Medicare Part D Clawback
Payments. In order to keep spending consistent across states, the data was that reported to the National
Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) and presented in their 2014 annual report, which includes
2013 actuals.
164
NONPROFIT ASSISTANCE
Non-Profit Revenue for Human Services Nonprofits as reported on Form 990EZc3 and 990 c3 minus
program service revenue, dues, and government grants as reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Most
current data is for 2010.
Community Health Benefit Spending by hospitals on low-income patients that includes charity care and
means-tested expenses, including Unreimbursed Medicaid minus direct offsetting revenue as reported on
the 990 c3 Report. Most current data is for 2010.
Sources:
Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2015 Analytical Perspectives Budget of The U.S. Government,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 2014. Tables start on p.253.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2015-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2015-PER.pdf
Department of Treasury, USAspending.gov Data Download, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, accessed 9/1/15.
https://www.usaspending.gov/DownloadCenter/Pages/DataDownload.aspx
Supplemental Social Insurance, B19066 - Aggregate Supplemental Security Income (SSI) In the Past 12
Months (In 2013 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) For Households, American Community Survey, 2013.
State spending data was gathered from: National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), State
Expenditure Report: Examining Fiscal 2012-2014 State Spending, 2014.
https://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/State%20Expenditure%20Report%20%28Fiscal%202012-2014%29S.pdf
Non-Profit Revenue for Human Services, registered charity NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of
Income 990EZc3 Report and 990 c3 Report, Urban Institute.
165
Community Health Benefit NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of Income 990 c3 Report for 2010,
Urban Institute.
APPENDIX F THE ECONOMIC

VIABILITY DASHBOARD:
METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES
The Economic Viability Dashboard is composed of three indices: The Housing Affordability Index, the Job
Opportunities Index, and the Community Resources Index. The methodology and sources for each are
presented below.
INDEX METHODOLOGY
Each index in the Dashboard is composed of different kinds of measures. The first step is therefore to create
a common scale across rates, percentages, and other scores by measuring from the average. Raw indicator
scores are converted to z-scores, which measure how far any value falls from the mean of the set, measured
in standard deviations. The general formula for normalizing indicator scores is:
z = (x )/
where x is the indicators value, is the unweighted average, the standard deviation for that indicator and z is
the resulting z-score. All scores must move in a positive direction, so for variables with an inverse relationship,
i.e., the housing burden, the scores are multiplied by -1. In order to make the resulting scores more accessible,
they are translated from a scale of -3 to 3 to 1 to 100. The year 2010 is used as the base from which change
can be measured over time.
Counties from all three states -- Idaho, Oregon, and Washington -- are included in one dashboard. For each
year, counties with data for at least 7 of the 9 indicators are included. There are 74 counties in 2007, 118 in
2010 and 118 in 2013.
INDICATORS AND THEIR SOURCES
Housing Affordability Index

Affordable Housing Gap Measures the number of units needed to house all ALICE and poverty
households spending no more than one-third of their income on housing, controlled for size by the percent
of total housing stock. The affordable housing gap is calculated as the number of ALICE households
minus the number of rental and owner-occupied housing units that ALICE households can afford.
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) and ALICE Threshold calculations
Housing Burden Households spending more than 30 percent of income on housing
Source: American Community Survey, Table PD04
Real Estate Taxes Median real estate taxes
Source: American Community Survey, Table B25103
Job Opportunities Index

Income Distribution Share of Income of the Lowest Two Quintiles
Source: American Community Survey, Table B19082
166
Unemployment Rate Employment Status

Source: American community Survey, Table S2301
New Hire Wages (4th quarter) Quarterly Workforce Indicators (QWI), U.S. Census
Source: LED Extraction Tool: http://ledextract.ces.census.gov/
Community Resources Index

Education Resources 3- to 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool
Source: American community Survey, Table B14003
Health Resources Percent of population under 65 years old with health insurance. For consistency with
data sets, for 2007 we use 2008 data. Prior to 2008, data was only available through the SAHIE Estimates
using the Current Population Survey (CPS) which does not match the American Community Survey, where
data from 2008 to date has been collected.
Source: American Community Survey, Table S2701 for 2010 and 2013; and B27001 for 2008
Social Capital Percent of population 18 and older who voted in the election. To match the election cycle,
for 2013 we used 2014 data, for 2010 we used 2010 data, and for 2007 we used 2006 data.
Sources:
Election Administration and Voting Survey and Data Sets, Section F, 2014 and 2010.
http://www.eac.gov/research/election_administration_and_voting_survey.aspx
Election Administration and Voting Survey and Data Sets, Appendix C: 2006 Election Administration and
Voting Survey.
http://www.eac.gov/research/uocava_survey.aspx#2006eavsdata
Housing
Affordability
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
Ada County
good (57)
good (56)
fair (58)
Adams County
good (58)
poor (45)
poor (42)
Bannock County
good (57)
fair (51)
good (62)
Bear Lake County
good (69)
fair (50)
good (59)
Benewah County
good (66)
good (61)
poor (46)
Bingham County
good (69)
good (54)
poor (52)
Blaine County
poor (35)
good (56)
fair (55)
Boise County
good (58)
poor (36)
poor (50)
fair (52)
poor (46)
fair (53)
Bonneville County
good (61)
good (56)
poor (50)
Boundary County
fair (52)
fair (48)
poor (48)
Butte County
good (58)
good (63)
fair (53)
Camas County
poor (42)
fair (53)
poor (46)
Canyon County
fair (54)
fair (52)
poor (46)
Caribou County
good (73)
good (68)
good (64)
County
Bonner County
167
Figure 34.
Economic Viability Dashboard, Idaho, 2013
Housing
Affordability
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
Cassia County
good (63)
good (55)
poor (49)
Clark County
poor (23)
poor (31)
good (59)
Clearwater County
good (65)
fair (51)
poor (50)
Custer County
good (71)
poor (46)
poor (45)
Elmore County
fair (52)
good (56)
fair (56)
Franklin County
fair (55)
good (55)
poor (49)
Fremont County
good (62)
good (55)
poor (49)
Gem County
good (60)
poor (38)
fair (54)
Gooding County
good (56)
good (59)
poor (45)
Idaho County
good (63)
good (58)
good (66)
fair (54)
good (59)
good (59)
Jerome County
good (58)
good (65)
fair (55)
Kootenai County
good (60)
fair (51)
fair (55)
Latah County
poor (39)
poor (41)
fair (56)
Lemhi County
good (62)
poor (41)
good (62)
Lewis County
good (59)
good (54)
poor (50)
Lincoln County
good (61)
good (58)
poor (46)
Madison County
poor (25)
poor (36)
poor (52)
Minidoka County
good (72)
good (58)
poor (47)
Nez Perce County
good (57)
good (57)
good (63)
Oneida County
good (58)
good (54)
fair (58)
Owyhee County
fair (55)
fair (48)
poor (42)
Payette County
good (58)
poor (45)
poor (49)
Power County
good (64)
good (78)
fair (54)
Shoshone County
good (57)
fair (51)
poor (43)
Teton County
poor (44)
poor (47)
fair (57)
Twin Falls County
good (57)
fair (53)
poor (47)
Valley County
good (60)
fair (49)
good (65)
fair (55)
poor (39)
fair (58)
County
Jefferson County
Washington County
168
Housing
Affordability
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
fair (52)
poor (42)
good (64)
Benton County
poor (28)
poor (47)
good (69)
Clackamas County
poor (27)
good (57)
good (63)
fair (47)
poor (46)
good (61)
poor (43)
fair (49)
good (59)
Coos County
fair (46)
poor (38)
good (60)
Crook County
poor (40)
poor (43)
good (59)
Curry County
poor (42)
poor (36)
good (59)
Deschutes County
fair (45)
fair (49)
fair (58)
Douglas County
fair (52)
fair (48)
fair (54)
good (57)
good (57)
poor (51)
Grant County
fair (53)
poor (38)
good (59)
Harney County
fair (55)
poor (47)
good (66)
poor (32)
good (63)
poor (50)
Jackson County
fair (46)
fair (49)
good (60)
Jefferson County
fair (54)
poor (39)
good (61)
Josephine County
poor (43)
poor (34)
fair (53)
Klamath County
fair (52)
poor (44)
fair (54)
Lake County
fair (52)
poor (42)
poor (47)
Lane County
poor (37)
poor (43)
fair (56)
fair (49)
poor (45)
good (62)
Linn County
poor (41)
fair (48)
fair (55)
Malheur County
poor (42)
poor (41)
fair (55)
Marion County
poor (36)
fair (53)
fair (54)
Morrow County
fair (55)
good (58)
fair (53)
Multnomah County
poor (23)
fair (51)
good (62)
Polk County
poor (35)
poor (44)
poor (47)
Sherman County
fair (53)
fair (49)
fair (57)
Tillamook County
poor (27)
fair (49)
fair (56)
Umatilla County
good (57)
fair (53)
poor (46)
Union County
poor (44)
good (57)
good (60)
Wallowa County
good (57)
poor (43)
good (61)
Wasco County
poor (29)
fair (48)
good (59)
Washington County
poor (27)
good (66)
good (62)
Wheeler County
good (59)
fair (49)
good (60)
Yamhill County
poor (36)
fair (50)
poor (52)
County
Baker County
Clatsop County
Columbia County
Gilliam County
Hood River County
Lincoln County
169
Figure 35.
Economic Viability Dashboard, Oregon, 2013
Figure 36.
Economic Viability Dashboard, Washington, 2013
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
Adams County
fair (47)
fair (53)
poor (44)
Asotin County
fair (46)
fair (49)
good (60)
Benton County
good (57)
good (58)
poor (50)
Chelan County
fair (47)
fair (53)
fair (55)
Clallam County
fair (53)
fair (50)
fair (55)
poor (34)
good (58)
fair (55)
Columbia County
fair (46)
fair (53)
poor (45)
Cowlitz County
fair (49)
fair (51)
fair (54)
Douglas County
poor (43)
good (56)
poor (50)
Ferry County
good (65)
poor (43)
fair (56)
Franklin County
poor (28)
good (57)
poor (52)
Garfield County
good (70)
good (60)
good (64)
Grant County
fair (52)
fair (52)
poor (46)
Grays Harbor County
fair (52)
poor (39)
fair (57)
Island County
poor (42)
poor (45)
good (60)
Jefferson County
poor (40)
poor (46)
good (62)
King County
poor (30)
good (68)
good (62)
Kitsap County
poor (39)
fair (52)
good (61)
Kittitas County
poor (40)
poor (41)
fair (58)
Klickitat County
good (57)
good (63)
good (65)
fair (50)
poor (46)
fair (56)
Lincoln County
good (60)
good (54)
good (64)
Mason County
fair (45)
poor (42)
poor (52)
Okanogan County
fair (52)
fair (49)
fair (56)
Pacific County
fair (51)
poor (45)
good (62)
Pend Oreille County
fair (53)
poor (39)
good (62)
Pierce County
poor (33)
good (55)
fair (53)
San Juan County
poor (42)
fair (50)
good (68)
Skagit County
poor (29)
good (54)
good (63)
Skamania County
good (58)
poor (43)
good (60)
Snohomish County
poor (29)
good (60)
fair (57)
Spokane County
poor (44)
fair (51)
fair (56)
County
Clark County
Lewis County
170
Job
Opportunities
Community
Resources
Stevens County
fair (55)
fair (50)
good (62)
Thurston County
poor (32)
good (56)
poor (51)
Wahkiakum County
fair (54)
poor (46)
poor (52)
Walla Walla County
fair (45)
fair (50)
fair (58)
Whatcom County
poor (30)
fair (50)
fair (55)
Whitman County
poor (34)
poor (38)
good (62)
fair (45)
fair (53)
poor (48)
Yakima County
171
County
APPENDIX G HOUSING DATA BY

COUNTY
This table presents key housing data for each county in the Pacific Northwest in 2013 for both owner-occupied
and renter-occupied housing units. For owner-occupied units, the table presents the percent of owner units that
are occupied by households with income below the ALICE Threshold and the percent of all owner-occupied
units that are housing burdened, meaning that housing costs are more than 30 percent of household income.
For renter-occupied units, the table presents the percent occupied by households with income below the ALICE
Threshold and percent that are housing burdened. In addition, the table includes the Affordable Housing Gap,
the number of additional rental units needed that are affordable to households with income below the ALICE
Threshold so that all of these households would pay less than one-third of their income on housing.
Housing Data by County, Idaho, 2013

County
Ada
Renter-Occupied Units
Owneroccupied
Percent Owned
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Owners
Pay More than
30% of Income
105,966
18%
36%
Source
Renteroccupied
Percent Rented
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Renters
Pay More than
30% of Income
Additional Rental
Units Needed to
Accommodate
all Renters
below AT
American
Community
Survey
48,037
46%
47%
9,770
1-year estimate
Adams
1,393
43%
62%
251
78%
38%
154
5-year estimate
Bannock
19,947
21%
26%
10,118
64%
47%
3,237
1-year estimate
Bear Lake
1,986
33%
35%
383
63%
41%
152
5-year estimate
Benewah
2,924
37%
40%
821
56%
38%
266
5-year estimate
Bingham
11,154
27%
32%
3,372
53%
36%
260
3-year estimate
Blaine
6,341
33%
62%
2,624
56%
40%
717
3-year estimate
Boise
2,343
36%
47%
508
68%
49%
243
5-year estimate
Bonner
12,312
30%
58%
4,493
49%
49%
1,278
3-year estimate
Bonneville
26,144
21%
34%
10,314
45%
44%
2,285
1-year estimate
Boundary
3,085
41%
51%
820
66%
55%
492
5-year estimate
Butte
812
35%
48%
160
80%
62%
88
5-year estimate
Camas
314
29%
48%
106
73%
53%
95
5-year estimate
Canyon
43,880
27%
45%
21,132
52%
50%
5,738
1-year estimate
Caribou
2,224
32%
31%
291
46%
29%
45
5-year estimate
Cassia
5,306
34%
36%
1,662
61%
46%
566
3-year estimate
5-year estimate
Clark
172
Owner-Occupied Units
NA
NA
NA
92
72%
5%
46
Clearwater
2,841
37%
43%
632
62%
36%
246
5-year estimate
Custer
1,561
38%
40%
240
65%
47%
68
5-year estimate
Elmore
5,758
31%
45%
2,990
53%
41%
1,500
3-year estimate
Franklin
3,359
51%
50%
551
75%
34%
367
5-year estimate
Fremont
3,751
29%
47%
648
65%
51%
272
5-year estimate
Gem
4,715
32%
44%
1,412
65%
54%
337
5-year estimate
Gooding
3,915
40%
51%
1,239
69%
53%
478
5-year estimate
Idaho
5,109
42%
52%
1,199
57%
40%
473
5-year estimate
Jefferson
6,741
45%
47%
NA
75%
NA
975
3-year estimate
Jerome
4,831
32%
43%
2,546
58%
45%
523
3-year estimate
Kootenai
41,538
19%
34%
13,374
45%
48%
3,268
1-year estimate
County
Owneroccupied
Percent Owned
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Owners
Pay More than
30% of Income
Renteroccupied
Percent Rented
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Source
Housing Burden:
Percent Renters
Pay More than
30% of Income
Additional Rental
Units Needed to
Accommodate
all Renters
below AT
American
Community
Survey
Latah
8,190
20%
36%
6,507
74%
55%
3,530
3-year estimate
Lemhi
2,733
NA
52%
939
NA
62%
NA
5-year estimate
Lewis
1,230
40%
43%
367
73%
48%
165
5-year estimate
Lincoln
1,159
54%
42%
323
73%
41%
164
5-year estimate
Madison
4,974
41%
39%
5,296
91%
65%
3,551
3-year estimate
Minidoka
5,087
32%
26%
1,696
57%
36%
279
3-year estimate
Nez Perce
11,117
23%
43%
4,469
47%
38%
932
3-year estimate
Oneida
1,282
37%
58%
231
80%
50%
94
5-year estimate
Owyhee
2,511
59%
50%
991
87%
38%
675
5-year estimate
Payette
5,859
33%
49%
1,931
61%
50%
402
3-year estimate
Power
1,818
57%
41%
616
66%
16%
194
5-year estimate
Shoshone
3,909
39%
48%
1,734
62%
45%
508
5-year estimate
Teton
2,584
39%
60%
935
64%
44%
263
5-year estimate
Twin Falls
19,208
26%
42%
8,974
45%
45%
2,702
1-year estimate
Valley
2,737
29%
49%
697
56%
38%
179
5-year estimate
Washington
3,006
37%
50%
812
76%
66%
302
5-year estimate
Housing Data by County, Oregon, 2013

Owneroccupied
Percent Owned
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Owners
Pay More than
30% of Income
Baker
4,768
35%
Benton
19,247
15%
Clackamas
Source
Additional Rental
Units Needed to
Accommodate
all Renters
below AT
American
Community
Survey
48%
913
5-year estimate
61%
4,325
1-year estimate
Renteroccupied
Percent Rented
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Renters
Pay More than
30% of Income
45%
2,120
64%
41%
13,963
60%
102,457
24%
49%
45,619
49%
51%
14,480
1-year estimate
Clatsop
9,529
NA
61%
5,606
NA
56%
NA
3-year estimate
Columbia
13,990
32%
44%
4,472
61%
52%
1,907
3-year estimate
Coos
16,945
32%
58%
8,243
54%
59%
2,853
3-year estimate
Crook
6,359
37%
61%
2,294
72%
64%
1,344
3-year estimate
Curry
6,688
NA
62%
NA
NA
NA
NA
3-year estimate
Deschutes
41,646
NA
56%
22,917
NA
55%
NA
1-year estimate
Douglas
28,820
28%
51%
14,212
48%
51%
3,706
1-year estimate
559
32%
45%
239
45%
37%
112
5-year estimate
Grant
2,335
43%
55%
812
65%
37%
396
5-year estimate
Harney
2,020
36%
48%
842
65%
42%
382
5-year estimate
Hood River
5,204
31%
56%
2,594
64%
45%
819
3-year estimate
Gilliam
Jackson
52,097
NA
60%
29,959
NA
57%
NA
1-year estimate
Jefferson
5,209
28%
41%
2,362
60%
38%
573
3-year estimate
Josephine
22,793
31%
60%
10,866
48%
63%
3,459
1-year estimate
Klamath
16,874
29%
45%
8,511
59%
57%
2,324
1-year estimate
173
County
County
Owneroccupied
Percent Owned
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Owners
Pay More than
30% of Income
Lake
2,361
42%
Lane
86,435
23%
Lincoln
13,177
NA
Linn
28,243
Malheur
6,335
Marion
67,175
Morrow
Source
Additional Rental
Units Needed to
Accommodate
all Renters
below AT
American
Community
Survey
48%
513
5-year estimate
60%
17,296
1-year estimate
50%
NA
3-year estimate
57%
4,372
1-year estimate
64%
1,957
3-year estimate
18,945
1-year estimate
Renteroccupied
Percent Rented
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Renters
Pay More than
30% of Income
49%
906
69%
53%
55,342
55%
60%
6,659
NA
37%
52%
14,857
49%
48%
48%
3,518
88%
35%
52%
45,153
67%
49%
2,737
39%
39%
931
79%
55%
325
5-year estimate
Multnomah
165,859
17%
57%
140,549
45%
51%
54,648
1-year estimate
Polk
17,374
30%
50%
10,492
68%
52%
4,733
1-year estimate
Sherman
537
38%
52%
230
48%
47%
103
5-year estimate
Tillamook
7,019
52%
62%
2,015
78%
53%
1,290
3-year estimate
Umatilla
15,822
21%
31%
10,400
49%
42%
1,634
1-year estimate
3-year estimate
Union
6,436
32%
49%
3,453
66%
54%
1,748
Wallowa
2,214
31%
60%
691
69%
49%
380
5-year estimate
Wasco
6,040
49%
56%
2,979
79%
63%
1,564
3-year estimate
Washington
120,531
24%
43%
81,548
54%
50%
23,202
1-year estimate
Wheeler
450
45%
57%
115
54%
29%
63
5-year estimate
Yamhill
23,298
33%
49%
11,564
51%
49%
4,504
1-year estimate
Housing Data by County, Washington, 2013

County
Adams
174
Owneroccupied
Percent Owned
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Owners
Pay More than
30% of Income
3,781
47%
45%
Source
Renteroccupied
Percent Rented
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Renters
Pay More than
30% of Income
Additional Rental
Units Needed to
Accommodate
all Renters
below AT
American
Community
Survey
1,606
77%
47%
905
5-year estimate
Asotin
6,135
31%
45%
2,840
62%
49%
1,261
3-year estimate
Benton
46,912
16%
35%
20,933
36%
42%
2,196
1-year estimate
Chelan
16,701
23%
50%
10,249
46%
46%
1,362
1-year estimate
Clallam
20,606
NA
40%
9,495
NA
59%
NA
1-year estimate
Clark
102,020
27%
44%
54,954
56%
49%
18,728
1-year estimate
Columbia
1,215
32%
51%
395
72%
70%
211
5-year estimate
Cowlitz
25,983
18%
40%
11,979
54%
56%
3,245
1-year estimate
Douglas
10,240
41%
41%
3,507
62%
44%
993
3-year estimate
Ferry
2,125
40%
48%
728
64%
49%
30
5-year estimate
Franklin
16,213
33%
33%
NA
NA
NA
NA
1-year estimate
Garfield
741
30%
43%
162
37%
19%
NA
5-year estimate
Grant
18,012
36%
30%
10,716
55%
50%
3,562
1-year estimate
Grays Harbor
17,840
32%
50%
8,136
44%
46%
1,726
1-year estimate
Island
22,639
23%
53%
9,830
22%
47%
916
1-year estimate
Jefferson
10,008
23%
65%
2,770
46%
57%
1,183
3-year estimate
King
462,885
11%
49%
345,178
34%
47%
48,774
1-year estimate
Kitsap
67,239
13%
43%
28,890
39%
56%
9,632
1-year estimate
Owneroccupied
Percent Owned
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Housing Burden:
Percent Owners
Pay More than
30% of Income
Renteroccupied
Percent Rented
by HHs below
ALICE Threshold
Source
Housing Burden:
Percent Renters
Pay More than
30% of Income
Additional Rental
Units Needed to
Accommodate
all Renters
below AT
American
Community
Survey
Kittitas
9,558
23%
50%
6,278
67%
61%
1,417
3-year estimate
Klickitat
5,325
30%
52%
2,292
56%
43%
384
3-year estimate
Lewis
19,853
27%
48%
8,839
49%
54%
2,981
1-year estimate
Lincoln
3,471
30%
48%
706
60%
39%
299
5-year estimate
Mason
17,670
25%
50%
5,131
47%
60%
2,163
3-year estimate
Okanogan
10,788
28%
41%
4,572
60%
51%
1,893
3-year estimate
Pacific
6,597
44%
54%
2,325
61%
47%
1,042
3-year estimate
Pend Oreille
4,118
36%
42%
1,137
72%
59%
717
5-year estimate
182,809
24%
49%
116,048
51%
53%
35,815
1-year estimate
Pierce
San Juan
5,541
NA
66%
1,935
NA
53%
NA
5-year estimate
Skagit
30,736
33%
53%
14,240
54%
62%
5,497
1-year estimate
Skamania
3,287
NA
48%
991
NA
39%
NA
5-year estimate
Snohomish
177,627
23%
53%
89,547
51%
50%
29,261
1-year estimate
Spokane
115,441
20%
43%
68,902
53%
53%
17,216
1-year estimate
Stevens
13,422
28%
53%
3,734
41%
54%
790
3-year estimate
Thurston
63,501
27%
51%
34,551
54%
49%
13,337
1-year estimate
Wahkiakum
1,302
31%
42%
387
81%
69%
90
5-year estimate
Walla Walla
13,600
35%
45%
7,387
58%
49%
2,031
3-year estimate
Whatcom
48,982
28%
49%
28,349
59%
57%
9,712
1-year estimate
Whitman
7,705
21%
32%
9,263
74%
63%
3,446
3-year estimate
Yakima
49,174
40%
50%
28,463
62%
53%
9,841
1-year estimate
175
County
APPENDIX H KEY FACTS AND ALICE

STATISTICS
Knowing the extent of local variation is an important aspect of understanding the challenges facing households
earning below the ALICE Threshold in the Pacific Northwest. Key data and ALICE statistics for the states
municipalities are presented here. Because they build on American Community Survey data, for most towns
with populations over 65,000, the data are 1-year estimates; for populations between 20,000 and 65,000, data
are 3-year estimates; and for populations below 20,000, data are 5-year estimates.
Key Facts and ALICE Statistics for Idaho Municipalities, 2013

Municipality by County
Poverty %
ALICE %
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
214,235
87,769
17%
21%
62%
0.48
5.9
85.5
22%
48%
1 year
Boise City CCD, Ada
321,060
125,238
13%
21%
66%
0.44
8.7
81.5
27%
48%
5 year
Boise Hills CCD, Ada
5,465
2,012
6%
13%
81%
0.41
3.6
91.4
26%
26%
5 year
Eagle CCD, Ada
34,925
12,634
7%
15%
78%
0.44
5.6
89.0
28%
52%
5 year
Eagle city, Ada
21,021
7,289
6%
14%
81%
0.43
NA
91.5
27%
48%
5 year
Garden City, Ada
11,124
4,872
18%
32%
50%
0.52
12.4
76.5
27%
63%
5 year
Hidden Spring CDP, Ada
2,170
738
6%
12%
83%
0.40
1.7
96.2
17%
25%
5 year
Kuna CCD, Ada
20,676
6,416
15%
12%
73%
0.32
8.7
77.2
35%
37%
5 year
Kuna city, Ada
15,723
5,096
14%
17%
69%
0.32
9.5
79.2
36%
59%
5 year
Meridian city, Ada
83,594
27,420
9%
15%
76%
0.39
NA
82.2
24%
40%
3 year
Orchard CCD, Ada
19,547
5,300
6%
11%
84%
0.39
8.1
89.4
19%
32%
5 year
Star city, Ada
6,032
1,841
11%
9%
81%
0.30
5.4
86.1
23%
54%
5 year
Council CCD, Adams
2,354
1,037
19%
20%
62%
0.45
5.7
64.4
28%
21%
5 year
Council city, Adams
798
345
23%
22%
54%
0.48
6.4
60.6
22%
23%
5 year
New Meadows CCD,

Adams
1,583
670
20%
21%
59%
0.48
15.6
79.4
35%
40%
5 year
New Meadows city,

Adams
536
224
24%
28%
48%
0.40
26.9
67.7
36%
66%
5 year
Arimo city, Bannock
359
112
13%
19%
68%
0.36
7.6
70.2
29%
31%
5 year
13,982
4,808
15%
19%
67%
0.40
7.8
86.4
30%
56%
5 year
527
191
12%
24%
65%
0.36
5.1
81.5
22%
28%
5 year
Fort Hall CCD, Bannock
2,209
697
10%
19%
71%
0.37
17.6
56.9
20%
13%
5 year
Fort Hall CDP, Bannock
3,126
1,043
23%
21%
56%
0.41
20.8
54.7
21%
35%
5 year
Inkom CCD, Bannock
3,612
1,300
4%
10%
86%
0.36
2.7
83.6
22%
43%
5 year
Inkom city, Bannock
886
308
11%
18%
71%
0.41
5.7
77.8
17%
23%
5 year
Lava Hot Springs city,

Bannock
393
181
10%
42%
48%
0.44
0.8
67.1
20%
15%
5 year
McCammon city,
Bannock
581
203
17%
26%
57%
0.40
13.6
76.5
24%
74%
5 year
Pocatello CCD, Bannock
72,091
26,550
17%
22%
61%
0.44
8.4
81.0
23%
50%
5 year
Pocatello city, Bannock
Downey city, Bannock
Households
Gini
Coefficient
Boise City, Ada
Chubbuck city, Bannock
176
Population
Above ALICE
Theshold %
54,542
20,601
19%
22%
59%
0.44
7.2
80.4
21%
50%
3 year
South Bannock CCD,

Bannock
5,179
1,724
10%
23%
67%
0.39
4.6
73.9
22%
44%
5 year
Tyhee CDP, Bannock
1,075
374
3%
14%
83%
0.35
1.7
97.5
17%
11%
5 year
Georgetown CCD, Bear

Lake
733
285
11%
8%
80%
0.34
7.8
74.2
17%
9%
5 year
Georgetown city, Bear

Lake
485
191
17%
13%
71%
0.39
10.1
63.0
22%
13%
5 year
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Montpelier CCD, Bear

Lake
3,387
1,404
19%
23%
59%
0.47
5.5
73.1
19%
46%
5 year
Montpelier city, Bear

Lake
2,568
1,073
20%
27%
53%
0.44
6.8
71.2
21%
48%
5 year
Paris CCD, Bear Lake
1,837
753
5%
19%
77%
0.33
4.9
75.1
17%
12%
5 year
5 year
480
228
0%
28%
72%
0.33
8.4
78.9
8%
0%
Plummer CCD, Benewah
1,522
654
23%
24%
52%
0.41
13.0
65.5
20%
46%
5 year
Plummer city, Benewah
935
372
29%
17%
53%
0.41
14.0
60.0
13%
54%
5 year
St. Maries CCD,

Benewah
7,029
2,952
11%
26%
63%
0.37
10.2
71.3
19%
29%
5 year
St. Maries city, Benewah
2,457
995
17%
30%
53%
0.36
10.8
68.3
36%
41%
5 year
635
282
15%
34%
51%
0.44
7.9
65.0
24%
24%
5 year
Aberdeen CCD, Bingham
3,650
1,143
16%
29%
55%
0.38
8.3
55.3
27%
29%
5 year
Aberdeen city, Bingham
2,318
734
18%
34%
48%
0.36
10.8
49.6
27%
30%
5 year
481
147
34%
22%
44%
0.50
20.9
62.8
36%
100%
5 year
2,176
680
14%
19%
68%
0.43
10.5
72.8
19%
39%
5 year
Paris city, Bear Lake
Tensed CCD, Benewah
Alridge CCD, Bingham

Atomic City CCD,
Bingham
384
126
11%
43%
46%
0.30
8.4
66.3
26%
17%
5 year
Blackfoot CCD, Bingham
14,355
5,055
18%
28%
54%
0.44
7.2
74.9
18%
40%
5 year
Blackfoot city, Bingham
11,875
4,193
20%
29%
51%
0.45
6.4
72.4
19%
40%
5 year
Firth CCD, Bingham
3,437
1,071
11%
20%
68%
0.36
6.2
81.7
23%
15%
5 year
Firth city, Bingham
588
189
14%
29%
57%
0.32
5.0
73.7
24%
17%
5 year
Basalt city, Bingham
2,567
875
28%
23%
49%
0.44
21.5
57.8
13%
33%
5 year
Groveland CDP, Bingham
603
200
0%
18%
82%
0.26
2.8
86.4
11%
26%
5 year
Moreland CCD, Bingham
10,628
3,057
11%
19%
69%
0.37
5.5
81.4
16%
40%
5 year
Moreland CDP, Bingham
1,702
400
29%
10%
61%
0.36
3.6
88.5
11%
69%
5 year
Riverside CDP, Bingham
977
243
21%
10%
70%
0.34
7.7
79.2
10%
100%
5 year
Shelley CCD, Bingham
8,191
2,622
10%
19%
70%
0.35
5.5
74.7
15%
25%
5 year
Shelley city, Bingham
4,406
1,328
15%
24%
61%
0.35
7.3
65.6
11%
25%
5 year
Bellevue city, Blaine
2,391
938
17%
36%
47%
0.44
9.8
62.4
46%
52%
5 year
949
383
16%
21%
63%
0.33
5.6
73.2
18%
60%
5 year
Fort Hall CCD, Bingham
Carey CCD, Blaine

Carey city, Blaine
589
201
8%
24%
68%
0.29
5.9
84.5
27%
18%
5 year
Hailey city, Blaine
7,958
3,318
4%
25%
71%
0.34
4.5
78.8
35%
36%
5 year
14,004
5,685
9%
24%
67%
0.40
5.1
77.0
39%
37%
5 year
Hailey-Bellevue CCD,
Blaine
Ketchum CCD, Blaine
6,341
3,139
6%
30%
64%
0.52
8.0
76.8
46%
30%
5 year
Ketchum city, Blaine
2,710
1,585
5%
37%
58%
0.46
8.9
70.1
57%
33%
5 year
Sun Valley city, Blaine
1,343
564
6%
31%
63%
0.45
6.6
83.1
36%
19%
5 year
Garden Valley CCD,

Boise
1,635
808
25%
18%
57%
0.45
13.8
54.0
32%
34%
5 year
Horseshoe Bend CCD,

Boise
1,747
709
20%
19%
61%
0.48
18.0
74.9
30%
43%
5 year
Horseshoe Bend city,

Boise
901
341
26%
24%
50%
0.42
22.5
67.8
25%
54%
5 year
Idaho City CCD, Boise
3,562
1,477
13%
23%
64%
0.43
9.6
74.4
20%
40%
5 year
527
211
24%
36%
40%
0.50
14.5
68.7
36%
78%
5 year
1,439
518
3%
5%
92%
0.23
4.5
91.3
18%
100%
5 year
13,883
5,710
17%
23%
61%
0.42
11.3
70.3
38%
38%
5 year
Idaho City, Boise

Robie Creek CDP, Boise
Blanchard-Glengary
CCD, Bonner
Clark Fork CCD, Bonner
2,124
1,018
22%
23%
55%
0.51
4.6
83.3
32%
50%
5 year
Clark Fork city, Bonner
640
314
41%
26%
33%
0.48
8.2
72.4
28%
72%
5 year
Dover city, Bonner
739
245
6%
7%
87%
0.40
6.6
83.2
12%
16%
5 year
East Hope city, Bonner
255
121
12%
21%
67%
0.40
5.2
63.3
23%
24%
5 year
Kootenai city, Bonner
814
351
17%
27%
56%
0.38
7.3
65.6
43%
55%
5 year
177
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Ponderay city, Bonner
1,168
555
17%
40%
43%
0.44
5.1
66.9
31%
51%
5 year
Priest River CCD,

Bonner
5,144
2,390
16%
18%
65%
0.40
9.8
73.9
38%
38%
5 year
Priest River city, Bonner
1,649
729
24%
26%
50%
0.39
6.5
72.6
37%
46%
5 year
Sandpoint CCD, Bonner
19,592
8,270
16%
21%
64%
0.46
7.2
72.3
30%
49%
5 year
Sandpoint city, Bonner
7,414
3,294
20%
23%
57%
0.48
6.1
71.6
34%
51%
5 year
Ammon city, Bonneville
13,993
4,382
9%
20%
71%
0.40
5.8
80.5
26%
50%
5 year
Idaho Falls CCD,

Bonneville
96,325
33,105
12%
22%
66%
0.42
6.9
77.7
21%
47%
5 year
Idaho Falls city,

Bonneville
57,992
21,016
14%
26%
60%
0.45
7.0
74.0
19%
48%
3 year
Idaho Falls West CCD,

Bonneville
1,537
541
19%
15%
66%
0.46
9.8
66.3
28%
23%
5 year
Iona city, Bonneville
1,817
520
12%
17%
71%
0.36
6.8
77.7
20%
32%
5 year
Lincoln CDP, Bonneville
2,790
852
9%
14%
77%
0.39
4.9
74.8
15%
59%
5 year
961
440
9%
28%
63%
0.43
5.1
77.0
18%
42%
5 year
Ucon CCD, Bonneville
6,757
1,980
6%
19%
75%
0.36
2.0
79.3
16%
49%
5 year
Ucon city, Bonneville
1,560
393
9%
21%
70%
0.38
1.9
80.3
25%
64%
5 year
Bonners Ferry CCD,

Boundary
7,051
2,708
20%
21%
59%
0.45
4.2
63.6
25%
42%
5 year
Bonners Ferry city,

Boundary
3,223
1,266
20%
25%
55%
0.41
5.9
58.3
24%
41%
5 year
Moyie Springs CCD,

Boundary
2,330
824
17%
20%
63%
0.40
7.9
62.9
28%
34%
5 year
Moyie Springs city,

Boundary
823
291
19%
26%
54%
0.45
10.2
55.7
20%
49%
5 year
South and West

Boundary CCD,
Boundary
1,485
612
22%
39%
39%
0.46
8.2
46.9
41%
54%
5 year
Arco CCD, Butte
2,542
936
15%
27%
58%
0.48
7.2
73.6
25%
48%
5 year
Arco city, Butte
Swan Valley CCD,

Bonneville
Unemployment
Rate
Population
178
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
1,151
427
24%
27%
49%
0.54
6.4
66.8
42%
62%
5 year
East Camas CCD, Camas
476
166
25%
22%
54%
0.45
23.1
45.4
35%
18%
5 year
Fairfield city, Camas
468
182
10%
32%
57%
0.32
2.3
66.4
46%
57%
5 year
West Camas CCD,

Camas
791
298
8%
32%
60%
0.42
6.8
67.0
40%
47%
5 year
Caldwell CCD, Canyon
35,854
12,405
22%
28%
50%
0.43
13.2
68.0
30%
51%
5 year
Greenleaf city, Canyon
851
298
8%
27%
65%
0.35
7.7
79.7
28%
21%
5 year
Huston CCD, Canyon
3,628
1,144
17%
15%
68%
0.45
12.3
66.2
37%
27%
5 year
Melba CCD, Canyon
2,722
830
13%
25%
62%
0.35
9.6
68.0
33%
25%
5 year
Melba city, Canyon
534
182
14%
35%
51%
0.39
12.7
58.1
31%
53%
5 year
Middleton CCD, Canyon
15,831
5,223
11%
28%
61%
0.40
12.8
79.4
29%
56%
5 year
Middleton city, Canyon
5,696
1,940
11%
32%
57%
0.34
18.0
76.0
33%
52%
5 year
Nampa CCD, Canyon
121,637
39,849
17%
23%
59%
0.40
11.7
71.4
32%
48%
5 year
Notus CCD, Canyon
2,664
796
22%
19%
58%
0.42
15.6
54.4
30%
42%
5 year
Notus city, Canyon
505
180
12%
37%
52%
0.34
18.6
67.5
30%
63%
5 year
Parma CCD, Canyon
4,829
1,639
18%
33%
49%
0.38
12.0
70.6
35%
50%
5 year
Parma city, Canyon
1,930
676
29%
32%
38%
0.38
11.8
70.7
32%
54%
5 year
Wilder CCD, Canyon
4,988
1,556
15%
21%
64%
0.38
12.1
63.8
25%
40%
5 year
Wilder city, Canyon
1,540
472
36%
34%
31%
0.39
19.9
49.8
28%
51%
5 year
Bancroft CCD, Caribou
814
271
8%
23%
69%
0.34
4.7
77.7
12%
8%
5 year
Bancroft city, Caribou
387
136
13%
30%
57%
0.35
7.2
74.9
14%
0%
5 year
Grace CCD, Caribou
1,998
752
8%
30%
62%
0.36
6.1
72.1
17%
16%
5 year
Grace city, Caribou
898
360
2%
39%
59%
0.35
7.5
75.0
19%
28%
5 year
Soda Springs CCD,

Caribou
3,729
1,499
8%
29%
63%
0.41
4.2
81.4
18%
33%
5 year
Soda Springs city,

Caribou
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
4.8
79.5
18%
34%
5 year
5 year
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
3,010
1,251
8%
33%
59%
0.40
326
122
0%
16%
84%
0.24
NA
100.0
8%
0%
Albion CCD, Cassia
3,094
933
8%
28%
63%
0.38
7.7
63.0
25%
7%
5 year
Albion city, Cassia
309
110
15%
20%
65%
0.38
10.2
87.4
14%
32%
5 year
Burley CCD, Cassia
14,167
4,825
19%
30%
51%
0.45
6.1
67.8
22%
46%
5 year
Burley city, Cassia
10,254
3,499
21%
30%
49%
0.45
7.0
68.0
23%
46%
5 year
Declo CCD, Cassia
3,190
1,096
15%
16%
69%
0.37
13.0
76.0
24%
19%
5 year
Declo city, Cassia
462
150
7%
23%
69%
0.29
6.6
55.4
19%
4%
5 year
Wayan CCD, Caribou
Oakley CCD, Cassia
2,603
799
13%
27%
60%
0.42
14.5
64.8
20%
15%
5 year
Oakley city, Cassia
875
266
17%
27%
56%
0.40
10.6
71.3
22%
24%
5 year
Dubois city, Clark
579
225
8%
35%
57%
0.36
NA
38.0
33%
5%
5 year
West Clark CCD, Clark
708
276
10%
40%
50%
0.35
0.3
37.4
33%
4%
5 year
Elk River CCD,

Clearwater
300
134
25%
41%
34%
0.34
23.0
66.7
25%
9%
5 year
Nez Perce CCD,

Clearwater
5,538
2,238
16%
22%
61%
0.40
9.8
76.1
23%
36%
5 year
Orofino city, Clearwater
3,099
1,092
18%
23%
59%
0.39
6.8
72.6
27%
43%
5 year
736
300
9%
34%
57%
0.39
14.1
61.0
22%
16%
5 year
Pierce-Headquarters
CCD, Clearwater
1,706
704
4%
34%
62%
0.42
6.6
75.1
19%
13%
5 year
Weippe CCD, Clearwater
1,094
469
7%
32%
61%
0.38
12.5
72.7
21%
30%
5 year
Weippe city, Clearwater
353
166
16%
27%
57%
0.36
20.1
72.0
21%
18%
5 year
Pierce city, Clearwater
Challis CCD, Custer
2,693
1,154
19%
20%
60%
0.43
4.2
81.9
23%
46%
5 year
Challis city, Custer
1,126
560
24%
29%
48%
0.44
7.5
80.9
34%
47%
5 year
Mackay CCD, Custer
1,343
570
14%
23%
63%
0.42
3.2
89.1
17%
23%
5 year
Mackay city, Custer
413
222
20%
29%
51%
0.44
1.1
84.2
22%
33%
5 year
Stanley CCD, Custer
295
146
10%
30%
60%
0.36
24.0
68.4
14%
46%
5 year
Atlanta CCD, Elmore
398
211
14%
24%
63%
0.55
25.7
73.3
20%
0%
5 year
Glenns Ferry CCD,

Elmore
2,339
1,054
15%
32%
53%
0.45
4.8
69.2
27%
36%
5 year
Glenns Ferry city, Elmore
1,278
570
21%
32%
48%
0.40
5.3
73.1
26%
49%
5 year
Mountain Home AFB

CDP, Elmore
3,273
764
4%
48%
47%
0.34
11.8
99.7
NA
16%
5 year
Mountain Home CCD,

Elmore
23,791
8,290
14%
21%
66%
0.38
10.8
78.0
29%
28%
5 year
Mountain Home city,

Elmore
13,915
5,372
14%
19%
67%
0.38
7.6
80.5
32%
35%
5 year
Dayton CCD, Franklin
2,823
829
14%
27%
59%
0.36
5.4
77.0
28%
43%
5 year
Dayton city, Franklin
494
128
13%
28%
59%
0.40
7.5
86.1
19%
60%
5 year
Franklin city, Franklin
776
248
11%
30%
59%
0.30
3.0
71.0
29%
38%
5 year
Mink Creek CCD,

Franklin
673
291
18%
38%
44%
0.43
14.7
67.4
38%
0%
5 year
9%
33%
58%
0.35
6.8
73.8
27%
21%
5 year
Preston CCD, Franklin
9,305
3,030
Preston city, Franklin
5,173
1,729
7%
38%
55%
0.34
9.3
72.3
27%
26%
5 year
Weston city, Franklin
521
174
17%
26%
57%
0.35
2.9
80.1
25%
39%
5 year
Ashton CCD, Fremont
2,412
984
14%
21%
65%
0.37
6.3
69.7
17%
59%
5 year
Ashton city, Fremont
1,002
424
20%
29%
51%
0.39
11.3
58.5
17%
60%
5 year
Island Park CCD,

Fremont
1,352
580
10%
21%
69%
0.41
2.0
92.0
30%
0%
5 year
Island Park city, Fremont
239
111
8%
26%
66%
0.33
3.4
85.5
46%
NA
5 year
Newdale city, Fremont
334
122
16%
32%
52%
0.35
NA
58.2
32%
50%
5 year
Parker city, Fremont
375
129
8%
37%
55%
0.39
7.9
87.7
20%
35%
5 year
8,010
2,552
11%
29%
60%
0.37
8.0
67.6
25%
39%
5 year
St. Anthony CCD,

Fremont
179
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Households
St. Anthony city, Fremont
3,499
1,150
20%
30%
51%
0.39
7.6
62.9
27%
40%
5 year
915
289
26%
31%
43%
0.40
4.9
66.8
38%
29%
5 year
Teton-Newdale CCD,
Fremont
1,314
433
23%
30%
47%
0.38
5.2
66.8
35%
35%
5 year
Emmett Bench CCD,

Gem
2,846
1,158
12%
20%
69%
0.37
15.2
70.4
21%
59%
5 year
6,547
2,496
24%
27%
49%
0.43
21.0
71.4
30%
51%
5 year
12,536
4,679
17%
23%
59%
0.42
15.2
71.8
25%
46%
5 year
Sweet CCD, Gem
1,340
486
14%
22%
65%
0.37
13.6
55.1
34%
43%
5 year
Bliss CCD, Gooding
1,178
419
16%
29%
55%
0.43
3.5
61.6
29%
20%
5 year
Bliss city, Gooding
290
122
41%
28%
31%
0.39
0.9
67.4
21%
47%
5 year
Gooding CCD, Gooding
6,155
2,275
22%
24%
53%
0.43
8.4
67.7
26%
49%
5 year
Gooding city, Gooding
3,532
1,368
24%
32%
44%
0.44
7.6
60.7
24%
60%
5 year
Hagerman CCD, Gooding
2,265
1,025
15%
34%
51%
0.48
7.8
60.1
29%
32%
5 year
Emmett Valley CCD, Gem
Hagerman city, Gooding
971
425
28%
30%
43%
0.39
10.1
55.9
26%
51%
5 year
Wendell CCD, Gooding
5,680
1,833
15%
25%
60%
0.40
2.2
64.7
29%
39%
5 year
Wendell city, Gooding
2,742
964
17%
27%
56%
0.38
3.3
59.1
29%
63%
5 year
Cottonwood CCD, Idaho
2,305
750
11%
21%
69%
0.33
8.7
79.3
19%
25%
5 year
Cottonwood city, Idaho
989
370
14%
23%
63%
0.33
6.6
82.7
22%
24%
5 year
Elk City CCD, Idaho
1,912
853
15%
31%
55%
0.42
12.7
75.6
23%
5%
5 year
Grangeville CCD, Idaho
6,015
2,464
18%
23%
60%
0.36
7.9
69.8
31%
45%
5 year
Grangeville city, Idaho
3,152
1,339
20%
20%
60%
0.35
3.7
74.9
32%
45%
5 year
756
323
15%
31%
54%
0.38
4.6
73.1
19%
39%
5 year
Nez Perce CCD, Idaho
4,610
1,834
17%
23%
60%
0.38
6.4
79.8
23%
35%
5 year
Riggins CCD, Idaho
1,427
633
13%
30%
57%
0.37
8.3
61.5
23%
35%
5 year
Riggins city, Idaho
408
213
19%
35%
46%
0.42
8.5
47.2
20%
44%
5 year
Stites city, Idaho
220
106
16%
39%
45%
0.38
9.6
70.2
22%
64%
5 year
Lewisville city, Jefferson
473
150
8%
26%
66%
0.33
7.4
67.8
23%
0%
5 year
4,244
1,305
8%
29%
63%
0.35
8.1
73.1
29%
30%
5 year
Menan city, Jefferson
832
235
13%
17%
71%
0.36
5.1
73.4
19%
14%
5 year
Mud Lake city, Jefferson
Kooskia city, Idaho
Lewisville-Menan CCD,
Jefferson
Unemployment
Rate
Population
Emmett city, Gem
401
100
14%
41%
45%
0.36
4.4
59.3
18%
28%
5 year
Mud Lake-Hamer CCD,

Jefferson
2,328
739
10%
34%
56%
0.40
3.8
68.6
19%
17%
5 year
Rigby CCD, Jefferson
16,265
4,937
11%
18%
70%
0.36
6.3
82.6
28%
42%
5 year
Rigby city, Jefferson
3,988
1,358
25%
32%
44%
0.41
4.5
89.7
44%
49%
5 year
Ririe CCD, Jefferson
2,010
629
9%
37%
54%
0.39
4.6
83.4
21%
32%
5 year
Ririe city, Jefferson
757
234
15%
42%
43%
0.30
5.9
66.0
12%
53%
5 year
Roberts CCD, Jefferson
1,542
448
19%
27%
54%
0.44
13.8
69.0
36%
29%
5 year
Roberts city, Jefferson
562
142
29%
46%
25%
0.40
12.6
39.7
35%
29%
5 year
Eden city, Jerome
364
165
21%
32%
47%
0.40
3.4
56.6
30%
52%
5 year
Eden-Hazelton CCD,
Jerome
2,645
996
13%
28%
59%
0.44
5.2
63.3
20%
27%
5 year
Hazelton city, Jerome
822
320
25%
27%
49%
0.39
9.0
61.2
29%
18%
5 year
Hunt CCD, Jerome
419
144
0%
52%
48%
0.30
3.7
61.6
48%
22%
5 year
Jerome CCD, Jerome
19,327
6,536
18%
27%
55%
0.38
7.6
58.8
29%
41%
5 year
Jerome city, Jerome
10,929
3,702
26%
29%
45%
0.38
8.6
52.9
29%
52%
5 year
Athol city, Kootenai
751
287
17%
31%
52%
0.39
14.6
54.4
30%
0%
5 year
Coeur d'Alene CCD,

Kootenai
72,978
29,819
13%
24%
64%
0.44
9.3
74.0
28%
53%
5 year
Coeur d'Alene city,

Kootenai
45,682
18,419
14%
29%
57%
0.42
9.4
71.2
22%
57%
3 year
2,021
807
10%
19%
71%
0.44
6.4
87.1
29%
45%
5 year
Dalton Gardens city,

Kootenai
180
ALICE %
Gini
Coefficient
Teton city, Fremont
Poverty %
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Poverty %
ALICE %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Harrison CCD, Kootenai
2,688
1,204
18%
16%
66%
0.45
6.5
82.9
28%
22%
5 year
Harrison city, Kootenai
206
116
18%
36%
46%
0.36
14.0
64.7
15%
86%
5 year
Hauser city, Kootenai
675
289
18%
31%
51%
0.39
9.1
65.3
33%
49%
5 year
Hayden city, Kootenai
13,432
5,138
8%
21%
71%
0.34
8.5
75.8
31%
41%
5 year
610
266
3%
10%
87%
0.49
1.7
90.9
29%
28%
5 year
Post Falls city, Kootenai
28,787
11,003
16%
14%
70%
0.38
9.0
78.1
28%
43%
3 year
Post Falls-Rathdrum
CCD, Kootenai
47,653
18,010
15%
18%
67%
0.40
9.7
77.7
30%
41%
5 year
6,934
2,544
12%
30%
58%
0.37
14.9
69.1
37%
63%
5 year
254
130
6%
15%
78%
0.63
8.9
88.5
37%
100%
5 year
Hayden Lake city,

Kootenai
Rathdrum city, Kootenai

Rockford Bay CDP,
Kootenai
1,812
696
19%
34%
48%
0.38
9.5
61.4
37%
74%
5 year
Spirit Lake-Athol CCD,

Kootenai
14,914
5,586
11%
19%
70%
0.41
10.8
74.1
31%
61%
5 year
Worley CCD, Kootenai
2,552
1,060
12%
18%
70%
0.48
12.6
71.5
27%
35%
5 year
Worley city, Kootenai
230
102
22%
15%
64%
0.39
7.1
62.5
29%
19%
5 year
Bovill city, Latah
235
106
20%
21%
59%
0.33
8.0
81.8
21%
36%
5 year
Deary city, Latah
567
231
9%
18%
73%
0.30
8.1
79.4
11%
38%
5 year
1,825
747
12%
24%
65%
0.37
11.1
77.3
17%
46%
5 year
Spirit Lake city, Kootenai
Deary-Bovill CCD, Latah

Genesee CCD, Latah
1,511
590
8%
12%
80%
0.33
3.2
83.1
13%
26%
5 year
Genesee city, Latah
1,056
407
8%
13%
80%
0.33
3.1
87.5
14%
30%
5 year
Juliaetta city, Latah
666
286
10%
31%
59%
0.36
18.2
86.7
29%
45%
5 year
Kendrick city, Latah
434
197
12%
26%
62%
0.38
14.7
77.1
24%
52%
5 year
Moscow CCD, Latah
26,844
10,551
27%
23%
51%
0.48
8.5
88.8
22%
58%
5 year
Moscow city, Latah
24,410
9,764
28%
24%
48%
0.47
10.7
87.8
19%
56%
3 year
Potlatch CCD, Latah
3,999
1,611
7%
22%
71%
0.42
7.8
85.6
26%
22%
5 year
Potlatch city, Latah
749
314
11%
23%
66%
0.30
18.9
76.7
32%
26%
5 year
Troy city, Latah
809
315
3%
14%
83%
0.31
5.5
79.6
13%
14%
5 year
3,457
1,442
7%
19%
74%
0.37
10.8
83.6
23%
27%
5 year
651
279
12%
26%
62%
0.38
7.7
82.8
17%
2%
5 year
5 year
Troy-Juliaetta-Kendrick
CCD, Latah
Leadore CCD, Lemhi
425
259
15%
44%
41%
0.44
13.6
64.2
20%
47%
Salmon CCD, Lemhi
6,711
3,265
23%
23%
54%
0.48
8.5
73.9
28%
58%
5 year
Salmon city, Lemhi
3,094
1,519
27%
27%
46%
0.51
11.7
63.2
23%
56%
5 year
Craigmont CCD, Lewis
694
312
7%
22%
71%
0.33
1.6
81.9
16%
7%
5 year
Craigmont city, Lewis
487
223
7%
23%
70%
0.34
2.2
77.3
20%
15%
5 year
Patterson CCD, Lemhi
Kamiah CCD, Lewis
1,861
788
17%
40%
43%
0.38
11.0
60.4
25%
47%
5 year
Kamiah city, Lewis
1,393
603
16%
41%
43%
0.38
11.9
62.0
30%
46%
5 year
Nezperce CCD, Lewis
631
249
15%
23%
62%
0.40
6.7
80.2
24%
35%
5 year
Nezperce city, Lewis
437
173
18%
19%
62%
0.37
5.9
79.8
20%
46%
5 year
Winchester CCD, Lewis
638
296
25%
24%
51%
0.42
5.6
71.5
22%
44%
5 year
Winchester city, Lewis
322
158
23%
30%
47%
0.43
3.8
67.5
24%
64%
5 year
Dietrich city, Lincoln
338
107
8%
45%
47%
0.36
15.1
62.4
17%
59%
5 year
Richfield CCD, Lincoln
1,221
341
15%
37%
48%
0.33
8.5
62.1
29%
11%
5 year
Richfield city, Lincoln
397
120
13%
39%
48%
0.35
12.6
70.0
14%
31%
5 year
Shoshone CCD, Lincoln
4,000
1,276
14%
33%
53%
0.38
8.6
56.4
22%
34%
5 year
Shoshone city, Lincoln
1,582
554
17%
36%
47%
0.38
9.3
56.0
24%
42%
5 year
Rexburg CCD, Madison
31,612
8,628
36%
28%
36%
0.53
12.0
88.0
23%
63%
5 year
Rexburg city, Madison
26,282
7,378
39%
29%
32%
0.51
13.0
89.8
20%
65%
3 year
Sugar City CCD, Madison
5,655
1,621
10%
24%
67%
0.36
4.9
83.1
24%
37%
5 year
Sugar City, Madison
1,288
399
9%
27%
64%
0.33
7.8
82.3
27%
37%
5 year
181
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
5 year
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Heyburn CCD, Minidoka
4,832
1,777
12%
33%
55%
0.38
3.2
76.0
19%
35%
Heyburn city, Minidoka
3,119
1,100
11%
36%
53%
0.32
4.7
74.0
17%
23%
5 year
Minidoka CCD, Minidoka
1,524
496
9%
26%
64%
0.40
2.1
50.3
20%
16%
5 year
Paul CCD, Minidoka
3,783
1,233
12%
21%
66%
0.36
7.5
67.3
11%
25%
5 year
Paul city, Minidoka
1,075
368
18%
25%
57%
0.41
16.7
67.6
16%
34%
5 year
Rupert CCD, Minidoka
9,965
3,488
13%
30%
57%
0.46
7.1
65.8
14%
38%
5 year
Rupert city, Minidoka
5,557
1,796
17%
34%
49%
0.39
7.7
62.0
17%
44%
5 year
387
154
29%
22%
49%
0.41
20.5
64.9
33%
48%
5 year
Culdesac city, Nez Perce

Lapwai city, Nez Perce
1,328
400
21%
24%
55%
0.37
16.3
63.3
14%
36%
5 year
Leland CCD, Nez Perce
289
132
3%
19%
78%
0.32
6.1
85.5
29%
0%
5 year
Lewiston CCD, Nez

Perce
34,189
14,144
10%
24%
66%
0.41
5.3
82.6
23%
39%
5 year
Lewiston city, Nez Perce
32,067
13,072
11%
24%
66%
0.41
5.3
80.6
27%
36%
3 year
4,980
1,743
16%
17%
68%
0.40
14.1
72.2
16%
32%
5 year
Nez Perce CCD, Nez

Perce
397
118
24%
10%
66%
0.34
NA
70.9
25%
0%
5 year
Malad City CCD, Oneida
3,860
1,461
15%
33%
52%
0.41
4.4
82.9
31%
43%
5 year
Malad City, Oneida

County
2,210
841
17%
37%
47%
0.39
7.2
81.7
28%
53%
5 year
474
196
5%
46%
49%
0.33
NA
58.5
8%
1%
5 year
1,722
505
21%
41%
38%
0.42
8.2
60.9
31%
25%
5 year
Holbrook CCD, Oneida
Bruneau CCD, Owyhee

Grand View CCD,
Owyhee
Grand View city, Owyhee
499
185
31%
38%
31%
0.54
23.2
43.8
37%
60%
5 year
Homedale CCD, Owyhee
4,388
1,527
27%
35%
38%
0.42
11.7
66.5
24%
37%
5 year
Homedale city, Owyhee
2,620
890
29%
50%
21%
0.38
14.7
57.8
38%
49%
5 year
Marsing CCD, Owyhee
3,121
1,061
18%
43%
39%
0.42
11.8
64.6
31%
33%
5 year
Marsing city, Owyhee
1,396
496
19%
56%
25%
0.39
20.4
54.4
38%
32%
5 year
Murphy CCD, Owyhee
1,469
547
27%
36%
37%
0.54
21.8
45.9
16%
5%
5 year
Fruitland CCD, Payette
8,034
3,101
15%
16%
69%
0.41
8.3
74.9
31%
44%
5 year
Fruitland city, Payette
4,711
1,879
20%
17%
63%
0.37
8.7
77.0
34%
46%
5 year
New Plymouth CCD,

Payette
5,399
1,647
14%
25%
61%
0.42
8.5
76.8
21%
26%
5 year
New Plymouth city,

Payette
1,898
655
12%
36%
52%
0.33
10.4
66.9
23%
28%
5 year
Payette CCD, Payette
9,196
3,308
25%
23%
52%
0.41
17.3
63.0
31%
53%
5 year
Payette city, Payette
7,447
2,580
28%
24%
48%
0.41
18.7
60.1
32%
56%
5 year
American Falls CCD,

Power
5,570
1,804
11%
40%
49%
0.32
8.0
75.4
23%
13%
5 year
American Falls city,

Power
4,405
1,383
13%
43%
44%
0.30
10.8
71.8
18%
15%
5 year
906
329
21%
24%
54%
0.32
11.5
76.6
26%
8%
5 year
Arbon Valley CDP, Power
Unemployment
Rate
Population
182
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Fort Hall CCD, Power
1,265
415
17%
20%
63%
0.30
10.4
74.6
26%
6%
5 year
Rockland CCD, Power
724
261
14%
41%
45%
0.40
5.7
71.2
16%
22%
5 year
Rockland city, Power
326
133
27%
29%
44%
0.47
9.8
71.5
29%
57%
5 year
Avery-Clarkia CCD,
Shoshone
542
207
21%
22%
57%
0.40
6.0
87.4
33%
8%
5 year
Kellogg CCD, Shoshone
6,739
2,947
18%
23%
59%
0.42
11.7
71.1
21%
44%
5 year
Kellogg city, Shoshone
2,106
923
19%
18%
63%
0.40
13.0
68.4
18%
36%
5 year
Mullan CCD, Shoshone
652
333
16%
16%
68%
0.44
6.0
79.7
19%
33%
5 year
Mullan city, Shoshone
622
321
17%
15%
68%
0.44
6.2
78.5
20%
35%
5 year
Murray CCD, Shoshone
919
400
18%
8%
74%
0.32
11.8
67.3
28%
66%
5 year
Osburn city, Shoshone
1,528
700
7%
25%
68%
0.37
9.9
81.9
25%
46%
5 year
Osburn-Wallace CCD,
Shoshone
3,877
1,827
16%
23%
61%
0.41
12.9
75.8
34%
47%
5 year
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Pinehurst city, Shoshone
1,752
811
16%
30%
54%
0.43
5.1
82.5
24%
41%
5 year
659
319
34%
31%
35%
0.44
16.2
54.5
30%
55%
5 year
5 year
Smelterville city,
Shoshone
913
366
24%
18%
58%
0.40
13.2
74.1
32%
40%
Driggs CCD, Teton
3,805
1,449
13%
39%
48%
0.39
13.6
69.7
34%
44%
5 year
Driggs city, Teton
2,148
794
18%
38%
44%
0.43
6.9
66.3
32%
43%
5 year
Wallace city, Shoshone
Tetonia CCD, Teton
1,178
365
2%
12%
86%
0.22
8.1
75.0
9%
0%
5 year
Victor CCD, Teton
5,158
1,769
9%
37%
53%
0.37
9.9
70.2
42%
38%
5 year
2,800
796
8%
26%
66%
0.32
11.7
68.2
26%
34%
5 year
Buhl CCD, Twin Falls
10,061
3,841
17%
27%
56%
0.41
6.9
70.7
26%
31%
5 year
Buhl city, Twin Falls
4,166
1,604
21%
29%
50%
0.41
8.0
64.2
28%
32%
5 year
Filer CCD, Twin Falls
5,524
2,052
13%
29%
58%
0.34
3.9
74.6
24%
45%
5 year
Filer city, Twin Falls
2,536
920
22%
29%
49%
0.35
6.2
68.5
35%
51%
5 year
Hansen city, Twin Falls
1,294
425
13%
34%
53%
0.32
6.8
66.0
32%
31%
5 year
Victor city, Teton
Hollister CCD, Twin Falls
2,511
809
15%
15%
70%
0.41
5.4
74.1
30%
8%
5 year
Kimberly CCD, Twin Falls
7,413
2,406
9%
23%
67%
0.41
10.0
73.1
27%
27%
5 year
Kimberly city, Twin Falls
3,319
1,124
11%
28%
61%
0.35
9.1
69.0
29%
36%
5 year
Murtaugh CCD, Twin

Falls
1,012
330
13%
28%
59%
0.40
1.7
60.1
25%
18%
5 year
Twin Falls CCD, Twin

Falls
51,255
18,607
15%
25%
60%
0.42
7.6
71.4
26%
42%
5 year
Twin Falls city, Twin Falls
45,315
16,312
18%
25%
57%
0.40
8.2
70.3
23%
42%
3 year
West Salmon Falls CCD,

Twin Falls
291
121
13%
15%
72%
0.37
7.1
90.1
40%
29%
5 year
2,786
1,073
10%
24%
66%
0.38
16.3
71.9
27%
19%
5 year
Cascade CCD, Valley

Cascade city, Valley
1,066
388
11%
40%
49%
0.43
24.3
77.1
23%
8%
5 year
McCall CCD, Valley
6,797
2,366
10%
24%
65%
0.42
4.5
71.6
28%
39%
5 year
McCall city, Valley
2,934
821
8%
25%
67%
0.42
2.9
66.6
19%
40%
5 year
Cambridge CCD,
Washington
928
408
14%
34%
52%
0.46
11.8
62.9
45%
36%
5 year
Cambridge city,
Washington
249
115
7%
55%
38%
0.40
17.5
87.6
31%
21%
5 year
Midvale CCD,
Washington
578
289
13%
36%
52%
0.43
5.9
73.1
32%
30%
5 year
Weiser CCD, Washington
8,588
3,241
17%
28%
55%
0.44
14.4
68.6
26%
62%
5 year
Weiser city, Washington
5,438
1,973
22%
31%
47%
0.43
15.7
63.5
25%
65%
5 year
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Baker City CCD, Baker
10,910
4,728
18%
28%
55%
0.45
12.1
76.3
20%
47%
1 year
Baker City, Baker
9,774
4,242
18%
29%
52%
0.46
12.6
75.4
20%
47%
1 year
Eagle Valley CCD, Baker
697
385
16%
28%
56%
0.37
13.0
88.3
22%
43%
1 year
Haines city, Baker
401
167
22%
26%
52%
0.36
11.8
78.2
22%
34%
1 year
Halfway CCD, Baker
1,115
512
18%
24%
58%
0.45
14.6
81.3
27%
28%
1 year
Halfway city, Baker
392
169
36%
22%
42%
0.44
15.8
65.7
25%
51%
1 year
Hereford CCD, Baker
700
363
17%
24%
59%
0.46
11.5
79.4
26%
17%
1 year
Huntington CCD, Baker
608
270
19%
26%
54%
0.33
18.6
65.1
25%
42%
1 year
Huntington city, Baker
470
203
24%
30%
46%
0.35
32.8
56.9
28%
61%
1 year
Wingville-Haines CCD,
Baker
2,025
862
12%
14%
74%
0.39
4.9
76.2
27%
25%
1 year
183
Key Facts and ALICE Statistics for Oregon Municipalities, 2013
Adair Village city, Benton
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
906
278
10%
11%
79%
0.31
5.3
84.9
28%
28%
1 year
Corvallis CCD, Benton
65,996
25,683
26%
20%
54%
0.51
8.1
84.9
24%
58%
1 year
Corvallis city, Benton
54,963
21,148
29%
20%
51%
0.52
9.2
87.6
25%
60%
1 year
Monroe city, Benton
688
276
17%
40%
43%
0.41
6.8
69.2
42%
53%
1 year
North Albany CCD,

Benton
8,220
3,144
3%
6%
91%
0.31
10.4
91.8
26%
25%
1 year
North Benton CCD,

Benton
4,197
1,599
8%
16%
76%
0.38
9.0
86.8
24%
34%
1 year
Philomath city, Benton
4,581
1,663
13%
20%
67%
0.37
7.4
87.3
29%
49%
1 year
Southeast Benton CCD,

Benton
4,414
1,622
17%
29%
54%
0.45
11.8
82.4
29%
44%
1 year
Southwest Benton CCD,

Benton
3,162
1,336
11%
27%
62%
0.49
6.7
82.1
30%
27%
1 year
Beavercreek CCD,
Clackamas
6,144
2,432
9%
17%
73%
0.41
11.4
87.6
28%
28%
1 year
Beavercreek CDP,
Clackamas
3,951
1,424
8%
15%
78%
0.40
10.2
88.0
32%
10%
1 year
Canby CCD, Clackamas
17,925
6,245
10%
25%
65%
0.39
11.1
79.3
34%
54%
1 year
Canby city, Clackamas
16,561
5,730
10%
24%
66%
0.39
10.4
78.9
35%
54%
1 year
Colton CCD, Clackamas
4,689
1,645
7%
29%
64%
0.39
11.0
74.0
32%
54%
1 year
Damascus city,
Clackamas
10,626
3,655
3%
17%
80%
0.37
8.4
90.7
35%
47%
1 year
Estacada CCD,
Clackamas
16,494
5,688
12%
19%
69%
0.40
13.1
78.5
36%
34%
1 year
Estacada city,
Clackamas
2,803
1,125
24%
22%
54%
0.41
9.7
80.8
36%
58%
1 year
Gladstone city,
Clackamas
11,602
4,518
13%
24%
63%
0.43
10.7
85.1
34%
51%
1 year
Happy Valley city,

Clackamas
14,931
4,597
4%
11%
85%
0.38
8.4
92.6
41%
47%
1 year
Jennings Lodge CDP,

Clackamas
7,698
3,007
13%
20%
67%
0.40
14.0
74.3
36%
40%
1 year
Johnson City, Clackamas
512
252
12%
49%
39%
0.36
10.2
74.2
40%
44%
1 year
Lake Oswego city,

Clackamas
37,231
16,123
9%
19%
72%
0.54
10.7
89.7
30%
55%
1 year
Milwaukie city,
Clackamas
20,448
8,746
12%
29%
59%
0.37
9.9
83.5
36%
43%
1 year
Molalla CCD, Clackamas
12,701
4,833
8%
31%
61%
0.35
14.7
79.4
41%
43%
1 year
Molalla city, Clackamas
8,152
3,162
11%
35%
54%
0.36
13.2
78.3
46%
49%
1 year
Mount Hood CCD,

Clackamas
9,751
4,212
8%
23%
69%
0.43
11.1
80.7
34%
41%
1 year
Mount Hood Village CDP,

Clackamas
4,775
2,155
9%
23%
67%
0.44
11.4
76.3
33%
46%
1 year
Mulino CCD, Clackamas
4,998
1,659
10%
18%
72%
0.36
9.9
81.2
37%
52%
1 year
Mulino CDP, Clackamas
2,175
778
6%
20%
74%
0.34
9.8
83.2
40%
46%
1 year
Northwest Clackamas
CCD, Clackamas
253,619
98,743
9%
22%
69%
0.46
10.3
84.6
34%
49%
1 year
Oak Grove CDP,

Clackamas
17,142
6,970
8%
31%
61%
0.41
10.8
82.7
34%
60%
1 year
Oatfield CDP, Clackamas
14,189
5,491
9%
19%
72%
0.38
8.5
89.1
30%
47%
1 year
Oregon City, Clackamas
33,782
12,451
9%
23%
67%
0.38
9.8
82.7
31%
52%
1 year
Redland CCD,
Clackamas
6,328
2,197
7%
15%
78%
0.39
6.0
87.4
32%
22%
1 year
283
107
5%
14%
81%
0.45
8.7
98.7
28%
20%
1 year
Sandy CCD, Clackamas
19,166
7,474
7%
26%
67%
0.39
10.4
83.5
34%
55%
1 year
Sandy city, Clackamas
9,737
3,722
6%
30%
64%
0.35
10.8
82.8
39%
54%
1 year
Stafford CDP, Clackamas
1,915
654
3%
16%
82%
0.38
7.2
93.4
37%
0%
1 year
West Linn city,

Clackamas
25,691
9,927
5%
18%
77%
0.45
7.3
89.5
34%
50%
1 year
Wilsonville CCD,
Clackamas
21,763
9,068
9%
24%
66%
0.44
9.4
79.9
34%
42%
1 year
Rivergrove city,
Clackamas
184
Population
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Wilsonville city,
Clackamas
19,922
8,094
10%
24%
66%
0.42
8.5
79.9
27%
38%
1 year
Yoder CCD, Clackamas
6,954
2,331
5%
22%
73%
0.36
3.1
74.2
32%
44%
1 year
Astoria CCD, Clatsop
25,182
10,483
15%
25%
60%
0.43
10.0
74.0
34%
48%
1 year
Astoria city, Clatsop
9,518
4,190
20%
25%
55%
0.46
8.8
72.7
30%
46%
1 year
Cannon Beach city,

Clatsop
1,553
732
19%
22%
59%
0.61
2.1
63.7
30%
69%
1 year
Gearhart city, Clatsop
1,513
684
11%
21%
68%
0.38
9.2
80.8
43%
63%
1 year
Jeffers Gardens CDP,

Clatsop
479
196
3%
38%
59%
0.36
14.4
55.0
61%
37%
1 year
Jewell CCD, Clatsop
1,021
425
24%
28%
48%
0.47
9.1
75.6
47%
69%
1 year
Knappa-Brownsmead
CCD, Clatsop
2,067
913
9%
24%
67%
0.41
4.9
77.6
21%
41%
1 year
Seaside CCD, Clatsop
8,887
3,928
13%
27%
60%
0.46
9.9
66.4
42%
55%
1 year
Seaside city, Clatsop
6,455
2,782
12%
26%
62%
0.42
12.0
68.1
41%
53%
1 year
Warrenton city, Clatsop
5,057
1,911
17%
32%
50%
0.41
7.0
74.1
32%
56%
1 year
Westport CDP, Clatsop
406
194
6%
38%
56%
0.35
3.2
79.2
10%
45%
1 year
Clatskanie CCD,
Columbia
6,965
2,647
12%
25%
63%
0.37
17.8
78.6
13%
50%
1 year
Clatskanie city, Columbia
1,756
670
23%
28%
50%
0.45
18.3
81.5
18%
56%
1 year
Columbia City, Columbia
2,276
820
7%
16%
77%
0.33
11.1
83.2
37%
28%
1 year
363
182
21%
36%
43%
0.40
11.0
82.7
49%
17%
1 year
Deer Island CDP,

Columbia
Goble CCD, Columbia
2,310
893
6%
24%
69%
0.38
7.6
90.6
23%
31%
1 year
Rainier CCD, Columbia
3,871
1,562
13%
33%
53%
0.40
10.0
79.7
23%
40%
1 year
Rainier city, Columbia
1,830
769
13%
32%
55%
0.39
12.3
78.2
23%
46%
1 year
Scappoose CCD,
Columbia
9,529
3,780
14%
23%
63%
0.44
11.4
87.1
23%
52%
1 year
Scappoose city,
Columbia
6,716
2,572
13%
20%
67%
0.44
11.7
88.2
21%
59%
1 year
St. Helens CCD,

Columbia
23,197
8,824
13%
26%
61%
0.43
14.4
80.1
34%
53%
1 year
St. Helens city, Columbia
12,985
4,707
18%
26%
56%
0.41
17.2
76.7
34%
59%
1 year
Vernonia CCD, Columbia
3,461
1,363
11%
26%
63%
0.37
8.9
86.2
40%
40%
1 year
Vernonia city, Columbia
2,110
830
8%
32%
60%
0.38
11.7
85.6
39%
57%
1 year
Warren CDP, Columbia
1,853
710
2%
20%
78%
0.34
5.3
87.0
31%
13%
1 year
Bandon CCD, Coos
6,098
3,041
15%
34%
51%
0.48
7.1
82.4
34%
54%
1 year
Bandon city, Coos
3,058
1,628
16%
36%
48%
0.48
6.2
76.2
41%
54%
1 year
Barview CDP, Coos
1,667
724
26%
35%
39%
0.48
35.4
68.7
35%
74%
1 year
Bunker Hill CDP, Coos
1,232
458
19%
53%
28%
0.41
17.5
75.0
52%
72%
1 year
Coos Bay CCD, Coos
31,285
12,700
19%
30%
51%
0.44
14.9
70.8
31%
52%
1 year
Coos Bay city, Coos
15,982
6,693
20%
29%
51%
0.46
13.4
68.2
33%
54%
1 year
Coquille CCD, Coos
8,184
3,172
15%
28%
57%
0.40
11.9
74.3
27%
53%
1 year
Coquille city, Coos
3,851
1,528
13%
30%
57%
0.36
10.8
79.5
25%
76%
1 year
Eastside CCD, Coos
5,617
2,329
18%
23%
58%
0.49
9.5
73.1
28%
45%
1 year
Glasgow CDP, Coos
829
342
2%
35%
63%
0.50
4.8
94.0
12%
100%
1 year
Lakeside city, Coos
1,643
741
19%
25%
56%
0.41
19.2
72.0
32%
34%
1 year
Myrtle Point CCD, Coos
4,392
1,889
20%
37%
43%
0.57
12.4
70.7
35%
63%
1 year
Myrtle Point city, Coos
2,454
983
19%
35%
45%
0.43
16.1
74.2
32%
58%
1 year
North Bayside CCD,

Coos
5,931
2,493
10%
28%
62%
0.45
12.8
81.1
22%
41%
1 year
North Bend city, Coos
9,623
3,784
13%
27%
60%
0.40
13.1
76.6
23%
42%
1 year
Powers CCD, Coos
1,246
448
17%
32%
51%
0.40
24.2
68.5
31%
15%
1 year
Powers city, Coos
925
315
23%
37%
40%
0.40
23.4
64.3
34%
25%
1 year
Crooked River CCD,

Crook
3,817
1,697
12%
25%
63%
0.33
13.6
68.2
32%
54%
1 year
Powell Butte CCD, Crook
2,095
937
7%
14%
79%
0.35
4.7
96.5
38%
54%
1 year
185
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Prineville CCD, Crook
14,982
6,246
20%
29%
51%
0.42
19.5
74.6
36%
51%
1 year
Prineville city, Crook
9,241
3,946
24%
32%
45%
0.42
17.9
72.0
41%
52%
1 year
Brookings CCD, Curry
9,524
4,403
9%
21%
70%
0.40
14.2
73.5
30%
53%
1 year
Brookings city, Curry
6,334
3,011
8%
21%
71%
0.41
12.3
72.9
33%
62%
1 year
Gold Beach CCD, Curry
4,711
2,139
14%
29%
57%
0.44
9.8
76.4
40%
44%
1 year
Gold Beach city, Curry
2,433
1,048
16%
25%
59%
0.45
8.6
73.6
38%
44%
1 year
Harbor CCD, Curry
4,653
2,188
12%
37%
51%
0.40
25.5
69.8
39%
35%
1 year
Harbor CDP, Curry
1,992
1,123
15%
41%
44%
0.38
26.1
60.9
44%
47%
1 year
415
230
7%
17%
76%
0.28
10.3
88.0
51%
18%
1 year
Port Orford CCD, Curry
3,396
1,602
25%
27%
47%
0.47
13.4
72.7
27%
51%
1 year
Port Orford city, Curry
1,229
579
33%
19%
48%
0.48
15.2
60.5
36%
74%
1 year
Bend CCD, Deschutes
88,769
35,965
11%
25%
64%
0.46
9.6
75.9
35%
50%
1 year
Bend city, Deschutes
81,236
30,413
13%
30%
57%
0.49
5.3
69.9
33%
49%
1 year
Black Butte Ranch CDP,

Deschutes
213
121
0%
13%
87%
0.31
NA
100.0
26%
NA
1 year
Deschutes River Woods

CDP, Deschutes
5,235
1,900
15%
28%
57%
0.38
7.8
71.6
38%
75%
1 year
Eagle Crest CDP,

Deschutes
1,714
848
11%
9%
80%
0.34
18.7
89.6
26%
61%
1 year
La Pine city, Deschutes
1,640
740
22%
48%
31%
0.44
24.6
68.1
60%
59%
1 year
Redmond CCD,
Deschutes
36,985
14,079
16%
26%
58%
0.41
18.7
74.4
39%
57%
1 year
Redmond city,
Deschutes
26,942
10,503
18%
30%
52%
0.39
18.4
75.8
33%
60%
1 year
Sisters city, Deschutes
2,262
911
14%
28%
58%
0.39
10.7
73.0
43%
48%
1 year
Sisters-Millican CCD,
Deschutes
28,029
11,593
16%
27%
58%
0.46
12.8
69.5
40%
55%
1 year
Sunriver CDP, Deschutes
1,255
609
14%
15%
70%
0.50
6.7
94.6
30%
11%
1 year
Terrebonne CDP,
Deschutes
1,416
596
13%
23%
64%
0.47
13.6
72.6
35%
60%
1 year
Three Rivers CDP,

Deschutes
3,284
1,471
16%
26%
57%
0.51
10.4
69.2
27%
59%
1 year
Tumalo CCD, Deschutes
6,782
2,931
10%
18%
72%
0.45
11.6
85.9
37%
54%
1 year
Tumalo CDP, Deschutes
287
180
7%
55%
38%
0.45
NA
90.7
14%
100%
1 year
2,175
835
19%
28%
53%
0.34
15.5
68.3
32%
44%
1 year
Days Creek CDP,

Douglas
291
121
20%
30%
50%
0.38
31.6
62.5
34%
84%
1 year
Dillard CDP, Douglas
369
162
0%
66%
34%
0.19
NA
83.0
54%
0%
1 year
Drain city, Douglas
1,102
425
9%
39%
52%
0.37
18.7
68.5
42%
29%
1 year
Elkton-Drain CCD,
Douglas
2,720
1,010
9%
31%
61%
0.39
15.4
71.0
31%
32%
1 year
Fair Oaks CDP, Douglas
419
120
4%
0%
96%
0.17
NA
95.4
12%
0%
1 year
Glendale city, Douglas
808
326
20%
40%
40%
0.35
13.5
71.0
34%
55%
1 year
Glide CDP, Douglas
2,083
735
12%
30%
58%
0.41
9.8
84.7
25%
60%
1 year
Green CDP, Douglas
7,795
2,951
16%
29%
55%
0.39
14.5
79.2
36%
40%
1 year
Kellogg-Yoncalla CCD,
Douglas
3,817
1,695
15%
31%
54%
0.42
9.5
72.5
31%
38%
1 year
Lookingglass CDP,
Douglas
1,121
434
14%
15%
71%
0.36
3.5
74.8
47%
81%
1 year
Melrose CCD, Douglas
5,166
2,036
8%
21%
71%
0.43
8.2
81.0
36%
36%
1 year
Melrose CDP, Douglas
775
289
9%
37%
55%
0.56
NA
64.5
33%
NA
1 year
Myrtle Creek city,

Douglas
3,433
1,386
27%
21%
52%
0.43
13.7
76.5
15%
60%
1 year
Myrtle Creek-Riddle
CCD, Douglas
14,246
5,622
22%
24%
54%
0.40
13.5
70.9
29%
48%
1 year
North Umpqua CCD,

Douglas
5,421
2,073
11%
28%
61%
0.40
9.7
85.6
22%
42%
1 year
861
386
11%
34%
54%
0.36
13.1
75.1
38%
54%
1 year
5,877
2,605
20%
29%
52%
0.45
14.9
72.0
30%
52%
1 year
Canyonville city, Douglas
Unemployment
Rate
Nesika Beach CDP, Curry
Oakland city, Douglas

Reedsport CCD, Douglas
186
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
4,130
1,815
26%
27%
47%
0.49
17.5
72.2
34%
50%
1 year
887
412
28%
24%
48%
0.43
10.1
81.1
28%
42%
1 year
Roseburg CCD, Douglas
40,889
17,463
18%
28%
54%
0.43
16.2
76.0
28%
54%
1 year
Roseburg city, Douglas
21,904
9,730
18%
27%
54%
0.43
12.3
77.8
20%
55%
1 year
Roseburg North CDP,

Douglas
6,143
2,665
23%
31%
46%
0.41
15.3
74.4
28%
67%
1 year
South Umpqua CCD,

Douglas
4,232
1,859
12%
30%
58%
0.40
10.8
72.5
28%
32%
1 year
Sutherlin CCD, Douglas
15,295
6,003
15%
29%
56%
0.44
13.7
77.0
33%
52%
1 year
Sutherlin city, Douglas
7,766
3,004
20%
29%
51%
0.40
15.4
74.2
35%
52%
1 year
Tenmile CCD, Douglas
9,623
3,480
18%
26%
55%
0.37
13.7
79.5
31%
35%
1 year
Tri-City CDP, Douglas
3,910
1,357
24%
24%
53%
0.38
15.7
65.1
34%
40%
1 year
Winchester Bay CDP,

Douglas
295
138
7%
28%
64%
0.40
3.1
98.0
8%
94%
1 year
Winston city, Douglas
5,359
1,818
25%
29%
46%
0.38
16.4
84.1
37%
45%
1 year
Yoncalla city, Douglas
1,114
483
21%
34%
44%
0.50
9.2
70.3
36%
47%
1 year
Arlington CCD, Gilliam
933
371
12%
6%
82%
0.38
12.7
69.9
14%
35%
1 year
Arlington city, Gilliam
658
258
11%
8%
81%
0.33
11.3
74.9
11%
42%
1 year
Condon CCD, Gilliam
982
512
11%
26%
63%
0.40
10.8
76.7
30%
23%
1 year
Condon city, Gilliam
538
314
14%
26%
60%
0.41
11.5
80.6
33%
39%
1 year
Reedsport city, Douglas

Riddle city, Douglas
Canyon City town, Grant
578
277
16%
31%
54%
0.39
6.6
66.9
30%
63%
1 year
John Day CCD, Grant
4,770
2,187
17%
26%
57%
0.44
8.1
75.5
26%
30%
1 year
John Day city, Grant
1,841
803
18%
31%
51%
0.47
6.9
77.4
23%
35%
1 year
Long Creek CCD, Grant
805
362
17%
33%
50%
0.49
14.8
71.9
27%
27%
1 year
Mount Vernon city, Grant
787
352
15%
33%
52%
0.33
9.8
60.3
24%
44%
1 year
Prairie City CCD, Grant
1,532
634
18%
29%
53%
0.44
17.4
69.8
28%
36%
1 year
Prairie City, Grant
1,142
443
14%
36%
49%
0.42
19.5
71.2
23%
45%
1 year
Seneca CCD, Grant
252
136
3%
24%
73%
0.46
9.9
83.5
42%
5%
1 year
Burns CCD, Harney
5,042
2,231
16%
23%
61%
0.40
12.6
81.1
15%
37%
1 year
Burns city, Harney
2,774
1,233
10%
26%
64%
0.39
13.2
81.0
16%
37%
1 year
Diamond CCD, Harney
1,005
347
20%
18%
62%
0.45
3.6
72.1
34%
8%
1 year
Drewsey CCD, Harney
1,267
535
24%
21%
55%
0.46
8.1
60.7
50%
34%
1 year
Hines city, Harney
1,495
662
31%
19%
50%
0.44
14.1
82.7
15%
42%
1 year
Cascade Locks CCD,

Hood River
1,062
424
10%
44%
46%
0.37
17.9
66.9
29%
55%
1 year
Cascade Locks city,

Hood River
1,033
409
11%
44%
46%
0.37
17.0
66.8
29%
56%
1 year
Dee CCD, Hood River
1,215
316
13%
16%
71%
0.38
6.4
71.7
21%
28%
1 year
Hood River CCD, Hood

River
12,640
5,125
9%
31%
60%
0.40
3.8
79.5
31%
36%
1 year
Hood River city, Hood

River
7,214
3,014
11%
38%
51%
0.40
4.9
76.4
25%
38%
1 year
Odell CCD, Hood River
5,845
1,717
6%
31%
63%
0.33
7.0
65.9
36%
27%
1 year
Odell CDP, Hood River
2,311
647
8%
30%
62%
0.27
9.0
75.5
42%
48%
1 year
Parkdale CCD, Hood

River
1,665
562
0%
21%
79%
0.29
3.6
76.6
30%
27%
1 year
Parkdale CDP, Hood

River
463
110
0%
25%
75%
0.12
NA
87.3
60%
31%
1 year
Ashland CCD, Jackson
30,628
13,799
18%
28%
55%
0.50
10.2
73.9
37%
55%
1 year
Ashland city, Jackson
20,521
9,277
18%
25%
57%
0.48
10.8
75.4
32%
57%
1 year
415
140
16%
34%
50%
0.30
21.6
66.0
39%
36%
1 year
Butte Falls-Prospect
CCD, Jackson
2,604
1,061
13%
34%
53%
0.39
13.5
76.6
33%
43%
1 year
Central Point city,

Jackson
17,271
6,585
9%
31%
60%
0.36
11.4
77.7
35%
50%
1 year
Eagle Point CCD,

Jackson
9,862
3,443
12%
22%
66%
0.37
15.6
78.0
27%
49%
1 year
Butte Falls town,

Jackson
187
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
14.8
77.8
30%
49%
1 year
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Eagle Point city, Jackson
8,520
2,957
14%
22%
64%
0.37
817
358
13%
37%
51%
0.34
5.0
91.4
48%
78%
1 year
Gold Hill city, Jackson
1,059
459
16%
35%
49%
0.39
12.9
79.6
39%
60%
1 year
Jacksonville city,
Jackson
2,795
1,473
3%
44%
54%
0.44
10.1
84.5
40%
63%
1 year
Medford CCD, Jackson
130,240
51,127
16%
29%
55%
0.44
13.1
71.8
35%
59%
1 year
Medford city, Jackson
77,680
29,201
21%
28%
52%
0.47
6.6
71.7
35%
60%
1 year
Northwest Jackson CCD,

Jackson
7,248
3,270
16%
32%
52%
0.41
17.0
63.0
41%
50%
1 year
Phoenix city, Jackson
4,563
2,134
18%
32%
50%
0.43
22.8
74.3
31%
64%
1 year
481
220
23%
38%
39%
0.45
4.3
62.9
21%
39%
1 year
2,114
1,007
23%
34%
43%
0.43
19.3
75.3
55%
54%
1 year
Prospect CDP, Jackson

Rogue River city,
Jackson
Ruch CDP, Jackson
978
345
9%
8%
83%
0.38
18.6
83.8
17%
100%
1 year
Sams Valley CCD,

Jackson
4,606
1,802
7%
25%
68%
0.38
15.7
82.0
34%
41%
1 year
Shady Cove CCD,

Jackson
6,242
2,856
20%
30%
50%
0.46
16.9
71.2
39%
58%
1 year
Shady Cove city,

Jackson
2,910
1,350
23%
32%
44%
0.43
19.7
76.6
47%
70%
1 year
Southeast Jackson CCD,

Jackson
2,237
858
10%
23%
67%
0.51
8.6
81.1
38%
42%
1 year
Southwest Jackson
CCD, Jackson
11,450
4,924
16%
26%
58%
0.46
15.4
74.6
32%
54%
1 year
Talent city, Jackson
6,123
2,741
20%
34%
46%
0.43
8.5
69.0
40%
55%
1 year
Trail CDP, Jackson
444
228
24%
49%
27%
0.44
14.0
27.7
34%
46%
1 year
8,297
2,413
15%
26%
59%
0.33
15.8
63.2
35%
35%
1 year
630
319
34%
33%
33%
0.39
18.3
63.3
94%
67%
1 year
1,215
251
8%
43%
49%
0.48
3.4
66.1
19%
15%
1 year
339
126
2%
19%
79%
0.37
26.5
96.7
53%
23%
1 year
Culver CCD, Jefferson
6,895
2,853
14%
23%
64%
0.42
15.2
72.8
36%
47%
1 year
Culver city, Jefferson
1,975
565
31%
24%
46%
0.38
21.1
55.0
42%
53%
1 year
588
262
10%
9%
81%
0.39
24.3
97.9
37%
53%
1 year
Madras CCD, Jefferson
9,513
3,683
16%
28%
56%
0.48
14.7
70.0
25%
30%
1 year
Madras city, Jefferson
6,263
2,410
21%
31%
49%
0.45
16.5
68.1
25%
31%
1 year
Metolius city, Jefferson
812
280
18%
30%
51%
0.40
14.7
59.2
37%
39%
1 year
Warm Springs CCD,

Jefferson
3,250
833
24%
17%
59%
0.39
23.7
55.2
11%
39%
1 year
Warm Springs CDP,

Jefferson
3,175
794
25%
15%
59%
0.40
23.6
55.7
12%
39%
1 year
Cave Junction CCD,

Josephine
7,161
3,105
29%
32%
39%
0.45
16.7
63.0
31%
51%
1 year
Cave Junction city,

Josephine
1,991
826
27%
38%
34%
0.43
15.1
72.1
34%
52%
1 year
Fruitdale CDP, Josephine
1,035
425
19%
20%
61%
0.36
34.9
86.2
35%
67%
1 year
Grants Pass CCD,

Josephine
60,827
25,167
18%
30%
52%
0.47
14.5
76.3
32%
54%
1 year
Grants Pass city,

Josephine
34,860
14,409
22%
34%
44%
0.49
12.7
78.5
31%
61%
1 year
White City CDP, Jackson

Wimer CDP, Jackson
Ashwood CCD, Jefferson
Camp Sherman CDP,
Jefferson
Grandview CCD,
Jefferson
Unemployment
Rate
Foots Creek CDP,

Jackson
Kerby CDP, Josephine
189
119
55%
0%
45%
0.45
NA
32.1
0%
0%
1 year
Merlin CDP, Josephine
1,490
630
18%
14%
67%
0.36
30.8
56.6
41%
32%
1 year
New Hope CDP,

Josephine
1,490
714
17%
15%
68%
0.37
11.9
67.6
16%
11%
1 year
Northwest Josephine
CCD, Josephine
7,066
2,784
10%
28%
62%
0.39
19.1
72.4
37%
54%
1 year
Redwood CDP,
Josephine
3,306
1,280
13%
29%
57%
0.39
9.4
77.0
37%
40%
1 year
558
248
23%
19%
58%
0.36
29.0
83.6
35%
9%
1 year
Selma CDP, Josephine
188
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Takilma CDP, Josephine
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
290
145
10%
43%
46%
0.42
18.1
62.9
18%
NA
1 year
Wilderville CCD,
Josephine
4,609
2,039
19%
21%
60%
0.49
18.8
71.3
32%
43%
1 year
Williams CCD, Josephine
3,120
1,295
19%
23%
59%
0.42
12.2
65.3
31%
39%
1 year
Williams CDP, Josephine
1,152
468
21%
21%
58%
0.41
20.9
63.6
33%
44%
1 year
Altamont CDP, Klamath
19,355
7,806
16%
26%
58%
0.39
11.9
75.6
25%
49%
1 year
Bonanza town, Klamath
449
162
23%
42%
35%
0.40
24.7
69.3
27%
32%
1 year
Chiloquin CCD, Klamath
4,123
1,934
17%
35%
48%
0.37
14.3
68.3
25%
33%
1 year
Chiloquin city, Klamath
696
277
33%
32%
35%
0.39
22.9
78.3
39%
28%
1 year
Crescent Lake CCD,

Klamath
3,307
1,450
15%
33%
52%
0.41
22.4
73.3
28%
46%
1 year
Keno CCD, Klamath
3,196
1,356
13%
32%
55%
0.42
17.2
71.6
28%
49%
1 year
Klamath Falls CCD,

Klamath
48,820
20,112
20%
26%
54%
0.44
12.9
75.7
29%
57%
1 year
Klamath Falls city,

Klamath
21,155
8,968
30%
23%
48%
0.48
17.0
74.5
29%
61%
1 year
Langell Valley CCD,

Klamath
1,495
660
35%
22%
43%
0.53
23.5
77.4
30%
27%
1 year
Malin CCD, Klamath
1,467
484
14%
33%
53%
0.36
8.9
57.3
20%
32%
1 year
Malin city, Klamath
664
195
21%
39%
40%
0.42
15.3
42.2
15%
46%
1 year
Merrill CCD, Klamath
2,293
821
9%
25%
66%
0.43
13.6
62.4
31%
35%
1 year
Merrill city, Klamath
882
325
13%
35%
51%
0.37
12.9
61.0
27%
55%
1 year
Yonna Valley-Poe Valley

CCD, Klamath
1,510
561
18%
31%
51%
0.42
15.4
81.3
28%
18%
1 year
Lakeview CCD, Lake
5,353
2,313
17%
23%
60%
0.43
13.3
74.8
23%
43%
1 year
Lakeview town, Lake
2,644
1,269
15%
23%
62%
0.43
15.4
80.4
14%
49%
1 year
313
172
13%
26%
61%
0.63
13.9
69.7
13%
9%
1 year
1,662
816
28%
32%
40%
0.45
17.8
66.4
25%
38%
1 year
Summer Lake CCD, Lake
578
306
12%
31%
57%
0.57
6.5
75.1
8%
4%
1 year
Warner Valley CCD, Lake
269
131
8%
49%
44%
0.42
5.9
90.6
60%
2%
1 year
Badger Mountain CCD,

Lane
12,219
4,770
14%
23%
64%
0.40
15.6
74.3
35%
52%
1 year
Coburg CCD, Lane
2,240
893
10%
20%
70%
0.49
7.6
87.8
23%
32%
1 year
Coburg city, Lane
1,008
411
12%
27%
61%
0.42
10.1
83.3
28%
34%
1 year
Cottage Grove CCD,

Lane
18,164
7,518
18%
29%
53%
0.43
14.7
75.2
34%
49%
1 year
Cottage Grove city, Lane
9,734
4,010
20%
30%
50%
0.42
12.7
72.0
41%
51%
1 year
Creswell CCD, Lane
9,179
3,501
11%
25%
65%
0.43
12.0
83.4
31%
39%
1 year
Creswell city, Lane
5,024
1,851
10%
31%
59%
0.39
12.1
84.5
35%
50%
1 year
Dunes City CCD, Lane
2,736
1,148
16%
29%
55%
0.44
7.8
81.7
38%
64%
1 year
Dunes City, Lane
1,337
588
10%
24%
66%
0.44
4.0
81.6
37%
25%
1 year
Eugene city, Lane
159,161
65,201
23%
22%
56%
0.53
9.7
80.6
29%
61%
1 year
Eugene-Springfield CCD,
Lane
255,951
104,458
20%
24%
56%
0.48
12.2
77.3
31%
56%
1 year
Florence CCD, Lane
12,408
6,257
14%
36%
49%
0.43
10.8
69.3
36%
44%
1 year
Florence city, Lane
8,463
4,399
15%
36%
49%
0.45
11.0
70.4
33%
46%
1 year
Junction City CCD, Lane
12,116
4,643
16%
24%
61%
0.41
11.6
75.3
30%
52%
1 year
Junction City, Lane
5,505
2,044
20%
27%
53%
0.43
13.5
73.0
30%
59%
1 year
Lowell CCD, Lane
5,010
1,855
13%
19%
68%
0.37
12.5
81.4
27%
54%
1 year
Lowell city, Lane
961
385
21%
25%
55%
0.35
24.0
61.8
31%
54%
1 year
Marcola CCD, Lane
5,372
2,006
11%
19%
71%
0.43
9.1
82.3
29%
52%
1 year
McKenzie River CCD,

Lane
4,816
2,131
14%
26%
61%
0.41
11.3
78.1
32%
48%
1 year
Middle Siuslaw RiverTriangle Lake CCD, Lane
1,937
853
18%
35%
47%
0.43
16.9
70.0
29%
35%
1 year
Oakridge CCD, Lane
4,378
1,975
21%
23%
56%
0.42
17.0
75.3
36%
49%
1 year
Oakridge city, Lane
3,210
1,503
24%
22%
54%
0.43
18.3
76.8
39%
49%
1 year
Paisley city, Lake

Silver Lake-Fort Rock
CCD, Lake
189
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Pleasant Hill CCD, Lane
5,430
2,238
11%
24%
65%
0.45
8.5
76.4
30%
46%
1 year
Springfield city, Lane
59,961
23,734
22%
27%
52%
0.40
12.9
74.2
36%
51%
1 year
Upper Siuslaw River

CCD, Lane
1,426
666
7%
23%
70%
0.39
19.0
79.3
44%
41%
1 year
Veneta city, Lane
4,580
1,692
14%
27%
59%
0.41
17.0
78.0
34%
37%
1 year
Westfir city, Lane
283
116
14%
33%
53%
0.43
9.9
68.0
21%
47%
1 year
Depoe Bay CCD, Lincoln
4,568
2,279
13%
28%
58%
0.41
8.1
68.7
41%
39%
1 year
Depoe Bay city, Lincoln
1,384
715
14%
28%
58%
0.41
10.6
67.3
45%
53%
1 year
Eddyville CCD, Lincoln
632
299
17%
35%
48%
0.47
NA
79.1
35%
15%
1 year
Lincoln Beach CDP,

Lincoln
2,065
993
12%
21%
67%
0.39
5.7
66.7
35%
33%
1 year
Lincoln City CCD,

Lincoln
12,502
5,679
17%
29%
54%
0.43
9.9
68.5
35%
51%
1 year
Lincoln City, Lincoln
7,968
3,662
19%
34%
48%
0.43
10.9
68.6
37%
54%
1 year
Newport CCD, Lincoln
12,419
5,731
15%
25%
60%
0.44
9.1
76.6
28%
42%
1 year
Newport city, Lincoln
10,013
4,481
17%
25%
58%
0.45
9.5
74.7
27%
43%
1 year
Rose Lodge CDP,

Lincoln
1,912
838
16%
19%
64%
0.38
4.2
65.3
25%
50%
1 year
Siletz CCD, Lincoln
3,130
1,181
17%
26%
57%
0.42
12.5
72.7
22%
51%
1 year
Siletz city, Lincoln
1,375
515
21%
29%
50%
0.39
13.9
69.0
23%
51%
1 year
Toledo CCD, Lincoln
5,282
2,074
12%
28%
60%
0.39
14.4
74.1
34%
48%
1 year
Toledo city, Lincoln
3,465
1,258
14%
26%
60%
0.38
18.4
69.2
40%
49%
1 year
Waldport CCD, Lincoln
7,537
3,670
16%
29%
55%
0.43
11.0
70.1
32%
54%
1 year
Waldport city, Lincoln
1,996
973
14%
31%
55%
0.40
9.1
71.7
26%
46%
1 year
Yachats city, Lincoln
759
418
11%
31%
58%
0.40
12.2
63.1
34%
57%
1 year
Albany CCD, Linn
53,292
20,435
17%
28%
55%
0.40
11.1
77.7
27%
54%
1 year
Albany city, Linn
51,449
19,370
18%
26%
57%
0.41
13.9
79.4
27%
59%
1 year
Brownsville CCD, Linn
4,232
1,527
9%
22%
69%
0.41
11.3
76.7
32%
49%
1 year
Brownsville city, Linn
1,605
639
10%
28%
62%
0.39
7.6
74.9
32%
61%
1 year
Crabtree CDP, Linn
374
178
15%
13%
72%
0.39
3.6
82.9
21%
NA
1 year
Crawfordsville CDP, Linn
281
115
0%
48%
52%
0.28
9.5
73.2
60%
0%
1 year
East Linn CCD, Linn
2,296
905
13%
27%
60%
0.40
4.9
87.2
34%
28%
1 year
Halsey city, Linn
1,100
343
10%
24%
66%
0.29
8.3
72.1
27%
57%
1 year
Harrisburg CCD, Linn
7,035
2,284
9%
22%
69%
0.35
8.7
77.0
31%
41%
1 year
Harrisburg city, Linn
3,598
1,171
9%
27%
64%
0.35
12.7
77.2
37%
42%
1 year
Holley CDP, Linn
409
155
19%
22%
59%
0.39
23.8
74.0
18%
100%
1 year
Lacomb CDP, Linn
230
103
22%
25%
52%
0.46
10.0
82.4
19%
24%
1 year
Lebanon CCD, Linn
25,297
9,595
16%
28%
56%
0.39
9.8
77.3
32%
42%
1 year
Lebanon city, Linn
15,641
5,945
20%
26%
54%
0.37
9.0
76.8
33%
45%
1 year
962
372
8%
25%
67%
0.36
5.9
91.9
33%
33%
1 year
Mill City CCD, Linn
6,632
2,462
10%
21%
69%
0.36
11.4
84.8
28%
37%
1 year
Mill City, Linn
1,452
543
12%
36%
52%
0.37
17.0
87.9
37%
58%
1 year
Millersburg city, Linn
1,787
643
11%
18%
71%
0.36
4.1
84.6
22%
40%
1 year
767
268
12%
24%
63%
0.33
5.1
73.2
39%
43%
1 year
5,498
2,204
11%
24%
65%
0.38
7.2
78.8
30%
29%
1 year
Shedd CDP, Linn
522
142
12%
0%
88%
0.28
NA
55.1
22%
100%
1 year
Sodaville city, Linn
443
147
11%
37%
52%
0.34
6.5
80.3
39%
39%
1 year
South Lebanon CDP,

Linn
1,278
507
15%
31%
54%
0.44
7.4
64.1
40%
0%
1 year
Sweet Home CCD, Linn
13,366
5,310
20%
31%
49%
0.43
15.0
74.9
25%
58%
1 year
Sweet Home city, Linn
9,000
3,615
23%
33%
45%
0.40
13.3
74.7
25%
61%
1 year
Tangent city, Linn
1,147
418
15%
31%
54%
0.43
14.4
78.0
25%
48%
1 year
Adrian CCD, Malheur
913
360
12%
34%
54%
0.49
13.0
75.8
27%
36%
1 year
Annex CDP, Malheur
296
100
19%
25%
56%
0.45
14.9
62.1
17%
16%
1 year
2,789
333
20%
39%
41%
0.43
7.9
29.3
44%
24%
1 year
Lyons city, Linn
Scio city, Linn

Scio-Lacomb CCD, Linn
Brogan CCD, Malheur
190
Population
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Dead Ox Flat CCD,

Malheur
1,345
443
14%
26%
60%
0.35
5.1
68.5
21%
31%
1 year
Jordan Valley CCD,

Malheur
666
269
16%
43%
41%
0.41
2.7
71.9
29%
5%
1 year
Malheur Junction CCD,

Malheur
899
309
8%
11%
81%
0.37
13.6
60.4
8%
30%
1 year
Nyssa CCD, Malheur
4,499
1,440
19%
25%
56%
0.36
16.9
71.2
16%
46%
1 year
Nyssa city, Malheur
3,231
1,097
19%
28%
53%
0.36
17.4
73.7
18%
44%
1 year
Ontario CCD, Malheur
14,486
5,116
33%
30%
37%
0.49
19.1
69.7
29%
61%
1 year
Ontario city, Malheur
11,227
4,258
33%
32%
35%
0.49
19.7
67.8
30%
61%
1 year
759
260
8%
42%
51%
0.52
1.9
64.5
29%
14%
1 year
Vale CCD, Malheur
4,029
1,403
19%
36%
45%
0.40
8.0
74.4
26%
44%
1 year
Vale city, Malheur
1,593
569
28%
33%
39%
0.44
4.4
65.0
26%
65%
1 year
West Bench CCD,

Malheur
273
117
31%
16%
53%
0.41
12.9
46.3
16%
61%
1 year
Owyhee CCD, Malheur
Aumsville city, Marion
3,674
1,194
9%
39%
53%
0.32
18.3
84.5
31%
55%
1 year
Aurora city, Marion
895
342
8%
21%
71%
0.34
9.9
85.1
35%
66%
1 year
Brooks CDP, Marion
833
211
49%
7%
44%
0.50
19.4
60.8
58%
64%
1 year
Donald city, Marion
950
373
6%
25%
69%
0.34
4.2
71.8
33%
43%
1 year
East Marion CCD, Marion
2,263
938
10%
26%
65%
0.37
18.0
87.8
23%
57%
1 year
Four Corners CDP,

Marion
17,260
5,355
19%
25%
56%
0.35
17.3
67.9
33%
50%
1 year
Gates city, Marion
652
272
22%
26%
51%
0.38
28.2
85.3
19%
74%
1 year
Gervais city, Marion
2,505
619
18%
27%
55%
0.34
13.7
56.3
59%
28%
1 year
Hayesville CDP, Marion
18,747
6,386
24%
32%
44%
0.43
14.0
64.5
30%
47%
1 year
Hubbard CCD, Marion
9,845
3,437
9%
24%
67%
0.36
10.2
73.1
35%
50%
1 year
Hubbard city, Marion
3,178
979
12%
31%
57%
0.32
9.7
66.8
42%
66%
1 year
Jefferson CCD, Marion
12,141
4,196
11%
24%
65%
0.40
11.1
82.1
35%
51%
1 year
Jefferson city, Marion
3,122
1,014
19%
32%
50%
0.42
8.9
74.1
37%
57%
1 year
Keizer city, Marion
36,900
13,542
13%
30%
57%
0.40
9.9
77.1
33%
52%
1 year
312
114
0%
26%
74%
0.32
NA
91.6
23%
0%
1 year
5,198
1,669
9%
34%
57%
0.38
12.4
71.2
30%
42%
1 year
1 year
Marion CDP, Marion

Mount Angel CCD,
Marion
Mount Angel city, Marion
3,364
1,221
10%
36%
54%
0.38
10.1
77.8
35%
51%
Salem CCD, Marion
226,901
82,178
16%
29%
55%
0.44
13.2
74.1
32%
51%
1 year
Salem city, Marion
160,618
59,637
17%
30%
53%
0.43
8.9
77.9
29%
47%
1 year
Scotts Mills city, Marion
407
140
15%
34%
51%
0.39
5.9
80.9
49%
88%
1 year
Silverton CCD, Marion
15,507
5,627
12%
22%
66%
0.39
10.3
80.9
30%
51%
1 year
Silverton city, Marion
9,263
3,558
15%
24%
61%
0.40
8.7
82.2
28%
53%
1 year
St. Paul CCD, Marion
1,522
495
10%
17%
74%
0.37
18.8
72.5
26%
16%
1 year
St. Paul city, Marion
401
140
6%
18%
76%
0.35
6.6
81.3
32%
56%
1 year
Stayton CCD, Marion
14,884
5,502
16%
32%
52%
0.40
16.4
77.9
37%
51%
1 year
Stayton city, Marion
7,690
2,909
22%
32%
47%
0.41
18.8
76.2
42%
57%
1 year
Sublimity city, Marion
2,711
1,122
9%
28%
63%
0.40
6.7
83.8
32%
45%
1 year
Turner city, Marion
2,279
794
11%
29%
60%
0.35
12.8
81.8
31%
66%
1 year
Woodburn CCD, Marion
30,180
9,243
19%
27%
54%
0.41
15.7
56.5
39%
49%
1 year
Woodburn city, Marion
24,207
7,732
19%
30%
51%
0.42
14.6
56.9
30%
53%
1 year
Boardman CCD, Morrow
7,982
2,439
15%
23%
62%
0.37
11.2
72.3
20%
51%
1 year
Boardman city, Morrow
3,271
920
21%
28%
51%
0.38
7.4
61.4
27%
53%
1 year
Heppner CCD, Morrow
2,004
871
18%
35%
47%
0.44
4.9
78.7
25%
59%
1 year
Heppner city, Morrow
1,370
594
24%
28%
49%
0.45
6.6
77.7
22%
70%
1 year
324
132
6%
18%
76%
0.35
10.1
90.6
7%
8%
1 year
Ione-Lexington CCD,
Morrow
1,232
431
6%
22%
72%
0.42
11.5
85.9
20%
17%
1 year
Irrigon city, Morrow
2,081
619
17%
21%
62%
0.36
16.7
72.1
20%
52%
1 year
248
102
2%
41%
57%
0.49
4.0
87.2
27%
0%
1 year
Ione city, Morrow
Lexington town, Morrow
191
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Corbett CCD, Multnomah
4,543
1,515
7%
11%
82%
0.37
14.6
80.4
31%
43%
1 year
Fairview city, Multnomah
9,003
3,815
13%
16%
71%
0.39
10.6
74.4
40%
51%
1 year
Gresham CCD,
Multnomah
142,150
51,188
16%
17%
66%
0.41
12.5
75.5
35%
56%
1 year
Gresham city,
Multnomah
109,410
38,775
19%
17%
64%
0.42
11.2
75.3
29%
55%
1 year
939
376
5%
11%
84%
0.34
8.9
80.7
28%
45%
1 year
Portland city, Multnomah
611,134
253,021
16%
14%
70%
0.48
9.0
79.9
32%
49%
1 year
Portland East CCD,

Multnomah
470,921
188,950
17%
16%
67%
0.45
10.3
77.5
35%
52%
1 year
Portland West CCD,

Multnomah
127,377
63,129
14%
16%
70%
0.54
9.7
85.6
31%
46%
1 year
Skyline CCD, Multnomah
2,650
1,157
3%
19%
78%
0.44
6.4
83.6
33%
61%
1 year
Troutdale city,
Multnomah
16,188
5,812
14%
12%
75%
0.38
11.9
81.4
35%
58%
1 year
Wood Village city,

Multnomah
3,899
1,241
22%
20%
59%
0.44
12.0
72.8
43%
56%
1 year
Dallas CCD, Polk
20,185
7,528
12%
23%
65%
0.39
10.9
82.3
29%
50%
1 year
Dallas city, Polk
14,689
5,598
13%
26%
61%
0.40
11.4
81.9
28%
51%
1 year
Falls City CCD, Polk
2,738
989
20%
26%
54%
0.43
17.2
76.0
44%
28%
1 year
Falls City, Polk
1,015
362
23%
31%
46%
0.37
16.2
70.8
44%
47%
1 year
142
129
1%
89%
10%
0.26
1.4
56.2
43%
100%
1 year
Grand Ronde CDP, Polk
1,544
572
10%
35%
55%
0.38
11.1
84.6
43%
50%
1 year
Independence city, Polk
8,608
2,867
31%
20%
49%
0.43
13.6
79.8
33%
68%
1 year
Monmouth city, Polk
9,687
3,365
29%
30%
41%
0.48
10.9
81.3
27%
61%
1 year
MonmouthIndependence CCD, Polk
20,681
7,195
26%
24%
50%
0.45
11.4
81.1
30%
62%
1 year
Salem CCD, Polk
29,304
11,228
10%
20%
70%
0.40
10.2
86.1
28%
39%
1 year
Willamina CCD, Polk
3,022
1,299
10%
42%
48%
0.38
17.5
81.6
31%
39%
1 year
Moro CCD, Sherman
901
407
21%
16%
63%
0.43
5.8
76.3
30%
33%
1 year
Moro city, Sherman
349
174
24%
28%
49%
0.42
5.1
68.0
37%
63%
1 year
Rufus city, Sherman
225
103
38%
14%
49%
0.44
4.5
65.8
27%
49%
1 year
Wasco CCD, Sherman
964
420
20%
15%
66%
0.44
9.7
71.3
19%
41%
1 year
Wasco city, Sherman
471
212
17%
21%
62%
0.39
14.8
69.1
19%
55%
1 year
Bay City CCD, Tillamook
5,179
2,025
13%
38%
49%
0.39
11.7
78.2
30%
44%
1 year
Bay City, Tillamook
1,371
522
11%
30%
59%
0.37
15.2
74.7
28%
44%
1 year
Fort Hill CDP, Polk
Bayside Gardens CDP,

Tillamook
843
359
18%
44%
38%
0.43
13.5
62.7
47%
39%
1 year
Beaver CCD, Tillamook
2,611
1,014
5%
26%
69%
0.33
11.6
77.1
38%
16%
1 year
Garibaldi city, Tillamook
736
344
18%
39%
43%
0.41
15.9
76.7
31%
66%
1 year
Hebo CDP, Tillamook
377
168
8%
20%
72%
0.24
4.8
67.5
25%
25%
1 year
Idaville CDP, Tillamook
466
137
25%
45%
30%
0.42
12.8
78.3
9%
28%
1 year
Manzanita city, Tillamook
421
185
13%
29%
58%
0.41
15.8
77.9
30%
57%
1 year
Nehalem CCD, Tillamook
3,547
1,465
19%
34%
47%
0.42
9.2
72.5
41%
23%
1 year
Nehalem city, Tillamook
270
116
7%
26%
67%
0.30
9.4
66.7
50%
13%
1 year
1,902
860
11%
37%
52%
0.37
4.8
74.5
39%
18%
1 year
Netarts CDP, Tillamook
963
479
10%
37%
53%
0.34
6.5
78.5
21%
53%
1 year
Oceanside CDP,
Tillamook
264
176
3%
20%
77%
0.40
NA
85.8
22%
0%
1 year
Pacific City CDP,

Tillamook
809
407
11%
47%
42%
0.35
34.4
74.2
58%
100%
1 year
Rockaway Beach city,

Tillamook
1,130
537
19%
38%
44%
0.45
14.0
76.4
33%
52%
1 year
Tillamook CCD,
Tillamook
12,061
4,872
17%
29%
54%
0.42
7.7
74.5
30%
49%
1 year
Tillamook city, Tillamook
Neskowin CCD,
Tillamook
192
ALICE %
Gini
Coefficient
Maywood Park city,

Multnomah
Poverty %
Above ALICE
Theshold %
4,949
1,976
26%
29%
45%
0.44
9.6
75.6
32%
54%
1 year
Wheeler city, Tillamook
366
163
17%
49%
34%
0.30
27.4
52.2
37%
27%
1 year
Adams city, Umatilla
383
140
9%
13%
79%
0.34
6.1
82.4
15%
7%
1 year
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Athena CCD, Umatilla
1,681
650
12%
20%
68%
0.40
7.6
82.4
23%
32%
1 year
Athena city, Umatilla
959
356
13%
19%
69%
0.38
6.5
75.4
23%
33%
1 year
Echo city, Umatilla
728
232
14%
31%
55%
0.54
10.8
77.4
17%
51%
1 year
Gopher Flats CDP,

Umatilla
363
151
20%
21%
59%
0.43
7.3
85.4
29%
39%
1 year
Hermiston city, Umatilla
16,866
6,028
18%
21%
61%
0.41
9.9
70.0
22%
50%
1 year
Hermiston-Umatilla CCD,
Umatilla
36,360
12,018
16%
18%
66%
0.40
10.2
70.5
22%
42%
1 year
Milton-Freewater CCD,
Umatilla
11,149
4,085
22%
24%
53%
0.42
16.0
61.0
28%
48%
1 year
Milton-Freewater city,
Umatilla
7,066
2,531
32%
22%
46%
0.46
19.3
58.3
32%
58%
1 year
Mission CDP, Umatilla
992
289
26%
25%
49%
0.48
15.3
58.7
10%
35%
1 year
Pendleton CCD, Umatilla
19,840
7,300
12%
25%
63%
0.42
8.6
82.3
20%
38%
1 year
Pendleton city, Umatilla
16,801
6,260
13%
26%
61%
0.42
7.5
82.1
20%
39%
1 year
Pilot Rock CCD, Umatilla
2,239
899
11%
31%
58%
0.40
17.9
83.3
18%
39%
1 year
Pilot Rock city, Umatilla
1,558
565
10%
34%
56%
0.38
22.8
84.4
13%
43%
1 year
Stanfield city, Umatilla
2,001
758
14%
18%
68%
0.34
9.0
73.5
22%
38%
1 year
Tutuilla CDP, Umatilla
504
173
9%
15%
76%
0.37
14.5
75.2
14%
0%
1 year
Umapine CCD, Umatilla
979
351
5%
37%
58%
0.40
8.5
82.6
18%
36%
1 year
Umapine CDP, Umatilla
246
111
7%
47%
46%
0.33
25.2
75.6
14%
58%
1 year
Umatilla city, Umatilla
6,927
1,512
22%
17%
61%
0.37
11.9
58.3
22%
33%
1 year
Umatilla Reservation
CCD, Umatilla
2,956
1,024
17%
16%
67%
0.43
10.5
74.1
16%
29%
1 year
Weston CCD, Umatilla
1,102
417
7%
21%
72%
0.36
14.4
75.1
19%
0%
1 year
Weston city, Umatilla
635
253
11%
17%
72%
0.32
16.0
69.4
13%
0%
1 year
Cove CCD, Union
2,350
883
5%
19%
76%
0.42
10.1
73.7
21%
22%
1 year
Cove city, Union
516
228
6%
16%
78%
0.42
14.8
78.4
10%
15%
1 year
Elgin CCD, Union
3,004
1,173
15%
20%
65%
0.41
10.5
78.0
25%
32%
1 year
Elgin city, Union
1,635
596
19%
21%
60%
0.40
14.7
72.7
14%
31%
1 year
Imbler city, Union
249
109
14%
16%
71%
0.40
10.0
84.9
29%
0%
1 year
Island City, Union
1,022
419
13%
11%
75%
0.41
5.2
90.0
21%
43%
1 year
La Grande CCD, Union
17,006
6,953
22%
20%
58%
0.48
9.3
79.6
24%
54%
1 year
La Grande city, Union
13,114
5,574
25%
22%
53%
0.49
10.1
77.8
24%
57%
1 year
478
171
17%
26%
57%
0.38
4.3
70.0
33%
16%
1 year
Union CCD, Union
3,143
1,177
13%
22%
65%
0.40
7.7
78.1
28%
37%
1 year
Union city, Union
2,059
781
14%
24%
62%
0.38
9.7
82.1
28%
45%
1 year
Enterprise CCD, Wallowa
3,237
1,369
20%
18%
62%
0.42
15.0
80.0
29%
50%
1 year
Enterprise city, Wallowa
2,019
811
18%
21%
61%
0.40
17.5
77.3
29%
48%
1 year
Joseph CCD, Wallowa
1,536
760
12%
28%
60%
0.43
7.8
68.8
33%
32%
1 year
Joseph city, Wallowa
953
461
20%
19%
61%
0.42
8.6
67.4
38%
32%
1 year
Wallowa CCD, Wallowa
1,818
716
13%
28%
59%
0.39
10.6
79.2
31%
47%
1 year
Wallowa city, Wallowa
877
367
19%
30%
51%
0.40
13.0
77.3
36%
61%
1 year
Chenoweth CDP, Wasco
1,744
699
9%
34%
56%
0.40
13.2
79.2
23%
40%
1 year
Dufur CCD, Wasco
2,724
1,208
12%
35%
53%
0.39
9.7
69.6
29%
30%
1 year
Dufur city, Wasco
497
194
10%
37%
54%
0.38
3.8
79.8
35%
57%
1 year
Maupin city, Wasco
436
217
19%
35%
45%
0.41
17.2
61.8
21%
43%
1 year
Mosier city, Wasco
559
231
10%
39%
51%
0.38
5.6
72.2
34%
51%
1 year
Pine Hollow CDP, Wasco
410
199
7%
40%
54%
0.38
15.3
76.3
31%
24%
1 year
The Dalles CCD, Wasco
21,241
8,074
12%
33%
55%
0.45
9.4
73.3
32%
51%
1 year
The Dalles city, Wasco
14,730
6,056
13%
34%
53%
0.44
8.9
77.7
33%
54%
1 year
938
239
24%
28%
48%
0.28
45.0
48.7
33%
0%
1 year
Aloha CDP, Washington
51,674
16,677
10%
19%
71%
0.37
8.7
81.6
28%
49%
1 year
Banks city, Washington
1,661
517
9%
15%
76%
0.31
11.9
83.9
38%
34%
1 year
North Powder city, Union
Warm Springs CCD,

Wasco
193
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Beaverton city,
Washington
93,525
38,494
13%
23%
63%
0.42
8.4
77.3
27%
42%
1 year
Beaverton-Hillsboro
CCD, Washington
412,268
155,258
10%
22%
67%
0.43
9.5
80.7
31%
47%
1 year
Bethany CDP,
Washington
21,477
7,402
4%
13%
83%
0.35
NA
92.5
24%
51%
1 year
Bull Mountain CDP,

Washington
8,984
3,059
5%
12%
83%
0.36
5.2
86.9
29%
32%
1 year
Cedar Hills CDP,

Washington
9,283
3,641
10%
21%
69%
0.47
8.9
83.4
25%
50%
1 year
Cedar Mill CDP,

Washington
15,380
5,774
6%
14%
80%
0.42
7.9
89.2
28%
48%
1 year
Chehalem Mountains
CCD, Washington
5,028
1,868
7%
18%
75%
0.43
11.5
77.4
32%
30%
1 year
Coast Range CCD,

Washington
8,235
2,943
9%
17%
74%
0.40
12.2
81.9
30%
55%
1 year
Cornelius city,
Washington
11,991
3,374
12%
26%
62%
0.36
18.7
61.8
43%
68%
1 year
Durham city, Washington
1,204
496
23%
19%
58%
0.53
8.7
85.7
30%
80%
1 year
Forest Grove city,

Washington
21,973
7,677
14%
29%
57%
0.41
10.9
83.6
28%
54%
1 year
Forest Grove-Cornelius
CCD, Washington
37,937
12,697
12%
28%
59%
0.40
13.6
74.9
34%
56%
1 year
Garden Home-Whitford
CDP, Washington
6,240
2,923
8%
28%
64%
0.44
9.4
86.6
38%
54%
1 year
Gaston city, Washington
Unemployment
Rate
Population
194
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
636
245
10%
26%
64%
0.40
10.2
82.1
30%
22%
1 year
Hillsboro city,
Washington
97,371
34,941
10%
24%
65%
0.41
7.0
78.7
22%
50%
1 year
King City, Washington
3,238
1,944
8%
45%
48%
0.43
8.1
82.5
33%
64%
1 year
Metzger CDP,
Washington
3,552
1,592
14%
30%
56%
0.42
8.4
83.5
42%
56%
1 year
North Plains CCD,

Washington
4,978
1,796
7%
27%
66%
0.49
9.0
87.1
33%
67%
1 year
North Plains city,

Washington
2,056
783
4%
27%
69%
0.37
11.0
84.7
35%
49%
1 year
Oak Hills CDP,

Washington
11,533
4,305
5%
19%
75%
0.37
8.3
86.0
25%
43%
1 year
Raleigh Hills CDP,

Washington
6,452
2,895
8%
27%
65%
0.53
9.3
85.1
35%
60%
1 year
Rockcreek CCD,
Washington
71,162
27,209
7%
21%
72%
0.40
8.0
85.0
26%
43%
1 year
Rockcreek CDP,
Washington
9,141
3,672
8%
20%
72%
0.39
6.7
88.5
33%
39%
1 year
Sherwood city,
Washington
18,441
6,380
7%
16%
77%
0.37
8.5
90.7
35%
41%
1 year
Tigard city, Washington
49,749
19,225
11%
25%
65%
0.46
8.2
79.8
30%
53%
1 year
Tualatin city, Washington
27,045
10,613
12%
21%
68%
0.43
8.4
83.2
26%
47%
1 year
West Haven-Sylvan CDP,

Washington
7,688
3,738
2%
17%
81%
0.39
6.5
90.1
25%
30%
1 year
West Slope CDP,

Washington
6,852
2,980
10%
24%
66%
0.47
8.8
81.7
29%
54%
1 year
Fossil CCD, Wheeler
556
273
15%
15%
70%
0.44
14.5
80.6
26%
22%
1 year
Fossil city, Wheeler
369
214
14%
20%
66%
0.47
21.9
74.5
29%
31%
1 year
Mitchell CCD, Wheeler
736
352
16%
18%
65%
0.41
6.8
77.6
26%
16%
1 year
Amity city, Yamhill
1,584
546
16%
28%
56%
0.38
13.4
82.7
34%
37%
1 year
Carlton CCD, Yamhill
7,496
2,697
4%
26%
70%
0.47
11.6
85.6
33%
23%
1 year
Carlton city, Yamhill
2,117
704
6%
35%
59%
0.33
12.5
74.2
50%
43%
1 year
Dayton city, Yamhill
2,536
848
17%
33%
51%
0.38
19.1
75.8
45%
52%
1 year
Dayton-Amity CCD,
Yamhill
8,949
2,946
10%
24%
66%
0.38
12.0
81.4
36%
39%
1 year
Dundee city, Yamhill
3,161
1,154
3%
27%
70%
0.37
6.7
89.8
28%
61%
1 year
Lafayette city, Yamhill
3,733
1,021
10%
29%
60%
0.33
11.3
68.6
33%
81%
1 year
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
McMinnville CCD,
Yamhill
34,574
12,359
16%
35%
49%
0.44
11.8
78.0
31%
54%
1 year
McMinnville city, Yamhill
32,855
11,577
17%
35%
48%
0.43
12.0
78.4
25%
51%
1 year
Newberg CCD, Yamhill
38,065
12,741
11%
24%
66%
0.40
8.6
81.7
34%
51%
1 year
Newberg city, Yamhill
22,450
7,269
11%
32%
58%
0.40
10.4
76.0
35%
48%
1 year
Sheridan CCD, Yamhill
10,718
3,395
17%
36%
47%
0.41
14.4
73.1
34%
46%
1 year
Sheridan city, Yamhill
6,074
1,622
22%
40%
38%
0.37
20.2
66.2
40%
48%
1 year
Willamina city, Yamhill
1,677
645
15%
49%
36%
0.38
23.5
70.3
35%
56%
1 year
Yamhill city, Yamhill
1,201
325
4%
24%
73%
0.34
14.8
74.6
27%
42%
1 year
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Lind town, Adams
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
459
159
11%
21%
69%
0.35
2.7
79.1
22%
27%
5 year
Lind-Washtucna CCD,
Adams
1,717
659
23%
21%
57%
0.46
4.8
87.7
15%
14%
5 year
Othello CCD, Adams
14,451
4,076
20%
28%
52%
0.40
13.2
56.5
26%
41%
5 year
Othello city, Adams
7,445
2,218
23%
26%
51%
0.39
11.5
63.5
28%
48%
5 year
Ritzville CCD, Adams
2,634
1,003
15%
30%
55%
0.41
13.3
73.5
27%
46%
5 year
Ritzville city, Adams
1,868
759
19%
35%
46%
0.42
16.5
68.3
28%
54%
5 year
225
104
20%
13%
66%
0.42
5.7
87.4
10%
67%
5 year
Asotin CCD, Asotin
4,241
1,620
10%
12%
78%
0.45
4.5
83.7
27%
37%
5 year
Asotin city, Asotin
1,253
422
18%
15%
67%
0.40
9.4
69.7
23%
52%
5 year
Clarkston CCD, Asotin
17,561
7,438
14%
24%
62%
0.44
9.0
77.4
22%
45%
5 year
Clarkston city, Asotin
7,290
3,136
22%
31%
47%
0.39
12.0
67.8
26%
51%
5 year
Clarkston HeightsVineland CDP, Asotin
6,843
2,778
4%
12%
84%
0.41
2.9
88.3
20%
14%
5 year
West Clarkston-Highland
CDP, Asotin
5,036
2,130
12%
26%
62%
0.39
12.4
79.9
22%
44%
5 year
Benton City CCD, Benton
5,626
2,036
15%
18%
67%
0.40
8.9
77.6
15%
42%
5 year
Benton City city, Benton
3,084
1,117
16%
22%
62%
0.37
7.4
69.6
17%
29%
5 year
Finley CDP, Benton
6,485
2,075
6%
17%
77%
0.31
9.3
67.6
19%
22%
5 year
Kennewick city, Benton
76,760
27,630
15%
20%
66%
0.44
9.6
74.2
22%
45%
1 year
Northwest Benton CCD,

Benton
14,325
4,664
13%
17%
70%
0.39
13.5
65.3
19%
40%
5 year
Washtucna town, Adams
Prosser city, Benton
5,752
2,170
11%
23%
66%
0.37
17.6
70.0
16%
46%
5 year
Richland city, Benton
51,430
20,368
9%
18%
73%
0.43
6.3
85.2
14%
44%
3 year
Richland-Kennewick
CCD, Benton
157,887
58,626
11%
19%
70%
0.42
6.7
79.9
18%
43%
5 year
South Benton CCD,

Benton
1,130
341
26%
21%
53%
0.51
7.3
69.6
23%
4%
5 year
West Richland city,

Benton
12,301
4,372
8%
8%
84%
0.35
6.9
87.1
14%
37%
5 year
Cashmere CCD, Chelan
10,862
3,702
11%
16%
73%
0.44
7.1
73.6
23%
43%
5 year
Cashmere city, Chelan
3,118
1,068
17%
26%
57%
0.47
10.6
70.0
23%
56%
5 year
Chelan CCD, Chelan
6,943
2,542
18%
23%
59%
0.47
11.1
59.5
39%
14%
5 year
Chelan city, Chelan
3,918
1,534
17%
22%
61%
0.48
12.8
65.6
39%
19%
5 year
5 year
Chelan Falls CDP, Chelan
168
115
47%
41%
12%
0.56
NA
68.4
53%
0%
Entiat CCD, Chelan
2,392
937
11%
22%
67%
0.36
9.0
75.3
29%
33%
5 year
Entiat city, Chelan
1,259
495
19%
23%
59%
0.41
13.1
69.8
23%
37%
5 year
Leavenworth city, Chelan
2,203
1,029
20%
26%
54%
0.52
3.5
77.5
36%
44%
5 year
Leavenworth-Lake
Wenatchee CCD, Chelan
6,280
2,766
15%
24%
61%
0.47
7.3
69.6
30%
37%
5 year
195
Key Facts and ALICE Statistics for Washington Municipalities, 2013
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
1,496
6%
18%
77%
0.42
7.2
69.3
33%
22%
5 year
1,298
17%
16%
66%
0.42
12.2
64.7
36%
26%
5 year
1,418
619
24%
18%
58%
0.48
11.9
70.8
33%
36%
5 year
1,245
494
2%
20%
77%
0.37
22.4
68.1
17%
21%
5 year
Malaga CCD, Chelan
4,089
Manson CCD, Chelan
3,550
Manson CDP, Chelan

South Wenatchee CDP,
Chelan
Sunnyslope CDP, Chelan
3,572
1,279
4%
12%
83%
0.46
6.2
89.9
20%
19%
5 year
Wenatchee CCD, Chelan
38,900
14,467
11%
21%
67%
0.44
8.9
70.2
29%
42%
5 year
Wenatchee city, Chelan
32,564
11,350
13%
24%
63%
0.43
7.5
66.2
30%
47%
3 year
Agnew-Carlsborg CCD,
Clallam
10,086
4,728
11%
25%
64%
0.42
8.3
79.5
28%
53%
5 year
Bell Hill CDP, Clallam
911
397
2%
14%
84%
0.41
25.4
79.0
32%
100%
5 year
Carlsborg CDP, Clallam
908
543
22%
37%
41%
0.41
16.1
56.7
33%
0%
5 year
385
172
60%
16%
24%
0.48
34.2
77.7
22%
58%
5 year
Clallam Bay-Neah Bay

CCD, Clallam
3,082
903
28%
24%
48%
0.49
18.1
64.9
15%
33%
5 year
Crescent CCD, Clallam
3,182
1,367
16%
23%
62%
0.45
12.1
80.2
23%
58%
5 year
Forks CCD, Clallam
6,051
2,565
20%
27%
52%
0.43
10.5
76.1
22%
36%
5 year
Forks city, Clallam
3,613
1,541
22%
32%
46%
0.43
13.8
77.5
20%
43%
5 year
Jamestown CDP, Clallam
337
145
0%
27%
73%
0.38
NA
67.9
45%
0%
5 year
Neah Bay CDP, Clallam
869
277
26%
30%
44%
0.54
10.9
61.9
14%
12%
5 year
Port Angeles CCD,

Clallam
30,185
12,736
16%
25%
58%
0.43
11.7
80.3
29%
54%
5 year
Port Angeles city,

Clallam
19,099
8,318
17%
28%
55%
0.44
11.9
81.2
30%
56%
5 year
Port Angeles East CDP,

Clallam
3,624
1,422
15%
25%
60%
0.39
14.2
72.9
21%
49%
5 year
River Road CDP, Clallam
362
186
17%
20%
63%
0.29
14.4
80.3
63%
47%
5 year
Sequim CCD, Clallam
19,145
8,515
9%
25%
65%
0.41
10.1
72.2
31%
48%
5 year
Sequim city, Clallam
6,602
3,089
11%
33%
57%
0.40
17.5
72.7
32%
50%
5 year
Amboy CDP, Clark
1,224
441
10%
26%
64%
0.41
6.1
92.0
37%
70%
5 year
Barberton CDP, Clark
5,769
2,072
8%
13%
80%
0.41
7.9
91.6
26%
35%
5 year
Battle Ground CCD,

Clark
56,823
19,217
8%
17%
75%
0.39
9.5
86.6
31%
45%
5 year
Battle Ground city, Clark
17,797
5,745
13%
21%
67%
0.38
11.8
84.5
35%
48%
5 year
Brush Prairie CDP, Clark
2,780
923
6%
16%
78%
0.35
9.0
83.3
31%
23%
5 year
Camas CCD, Clark
54,340
18,509
7%
16%
76%
0.41
11.8
85.7
32%
43%
5 year
Camas city, Clark
20,543
6,934
5%
16%
80%
0.45
7.2
89.3
28%
47%
3 year
Cherry Grove CDP, Clark
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
ALICE %
Households
Clallam Bay CDP, Clallam
196
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Poverty %
Population
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Above ALICE
Theshold %
456
212
0%
18%
82%
0.30
17.4
97.0
25%
NA
5 year
Dollars Corner CDP,

Clark
1,250
509
1%
32%
66%
0.39
13.9
80.3
28%
100%
5 year
Duluth CDP, Clark
1,094
435
6%
34%
60%
0.47
10.7
84.5
34%
93%
5 year
Felida CDP, Clark
7,325
2,477
1%
9%
90%
0.37
6.0
93.6
26%
40%
5 year
Fern Prairie CDP, Clark
1,991
658
5%
17%
78%
0.36
10.0
92.0
20%
87%
5 year
Five Corners CDP, Clark
19,566
6,020
11%
21%
68%
0.35
13.0
76.5
32%
42%
3 year
Hazel Dell CDP, Clark
20,159
7,829
16%
29%
55%
0.43
9.3
75.1
33%
52%
3 year
Hockinson CDP, Clark
4,805
1,610
7%
14%
80%
0.35
8.9
89.0
30%
33%
5 year
La Center CCD, Clark
14,503
5,156
6%
18%
77%
0.38
7.5
86.0
32%
44%
5 year
La Center city, Clark
2,953
1,008
9%
16%
75%
0.34
7.3
86.2
34%
54%
5 year
Lake Shore CDP, Clark
6,361
2,416
4%
18%
78%
0.38
5.4
89.8
32%
29%
5 year
Lewisville CDP, Clark
1,794
609
5%
11%
85%
0.32
3.9
95.6
24%
31%
5 year
Meadow Glade CDP,

Clark
2,486
772
4%
19%
78%
0.41
7.1
90.5
37%
31%
5 year
Minnehaha CDP, Clark
8,680
3,571
7%
28%
65%
0.35
10.8
83.6
35%
61%
5 year
Mount Vista CDP, Clark
7,640
3,088
9%
14%
77%
0.42
6.0
86.2
27%
45%
5 year
Orchards CCD, Clark
68,812
23,307
11%
24%
66%
0.36
12.2
76.9
34%
52%
5 year
Orchards CDP, Clark
22,307
6,717
8%
23%
68%
0.37
12.2
80.9
26%
56%
3 year
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Ridgefield CCD, Clark
7,851
2,750
4%
17%
79%
0.34
8.1
87.0
25%
26%
5 year
Ridgefield city, Clark
5,070
1,680
5%
13%
82%
0.31
9.5
85.0
25%
20%
5 year
Salmon Creek CDP, Clark
21,427
7,748
11%
19%
70%
0.41
11.9
82.1
30%
55%
3 year
Vancouver CCD, Clark
222,452
87,346
13%
25%
62%
0.44
11.5
80.0
31%
51%
5 year
Vancouver city, Clark
167,410
64,090
15%
27%
57%
0.43
9.4
76.5
25%
49%
1 year
Venersborg CDP, Clark
3,394
1,107
6%
10%
83%
0.35
8.0
93.8
28%
37%
5 year
Walnut Grove CDP, Clark
10,704
4,087
8%
22%
70%
0.39
11.9
82.5
37%
50%
5 year
Washougal city, Clark
14,319
5,142
11%
20%
69%
0.43
16.4
79.1
36%
43%
5 year
Yacolt CCD, Clark
7,768
2,570
8%
20%
72%
0.38
11.0
85.8
36%
50%
5 year
Yacolt town, Clark
1,581
489
9%
21%
71%
0.32
13.9
74.3
43%
49%
5 year
Dayton CCD, Columbia
3,813
1,540
17%
21%
62%
0.46
8.0
80.5
27%
66%
5 year
Dayton city, Columbia
2,951
1,167
17%
23%
60%
0.42
9.7
78.9
29%
64%
5 year
214
111
16%
20%
64%
0.48
NA
84.0
11%
28%
5 year
Castle Rock CCD,

Cowlitz
15,485
5,871
8%
20%
72%
0.38
10.1
82.7
21%
48%
5 year
Castle Rock city, Cowlitz
2,263
928
14%
36%
50%
0.39
4.9
73.0
31%
63%
5 year
Kalama CCD, Cowlitz
7,211
2,653
6%
15%
79%
0.35
15.3
81.6
31%
38%
5 year
Kalama city, Cowlitz
2,644
1,027
11%
21%
68%
0.39
16.1
79.2
28%
56%
5 year
Kelso city, Cowlitz
11,878
4,670
25%
23%
52%
0.40
21.1
71.4
38%
54%
5 year
Longview city, Cowlitz
36,620
15,107
21%
25%
54%
0.46
14.8
79.7
28%
60%
3 year
Longview Heights CDP,

Cowlitz
3,407
1,307
9%
23%
68%
0.41
12.4
81.3
28%
27%
5 year
Longview-Kelso CCD,
Cowlitz
62,616
25,027
20%
23%
57%
0.44
14.5
77.7
29%
59%
5 year
Northeast Cowlitz CCD,

Cowlitz
1,843
679
18%
11%
71%
0.41
13.1
72.9
25%
8%
5 year
Rose Valley CCD,

Cowlitz
5,178
1,984
9%
19%
72%
0.40
8.0
90.5
29%
36%
5 year
Ryderwood CDP, Cowlitz
200
124
9%
45%
46%
0.33
NA
77.8
15%
NA
5 year
West Side Highway CDP,

Cowlitz
5,292
1,935
11%
19%
70%
0.37
9.2
85.5
22%
42%
5 year
Woodland CCD, Cowlitz
9,777
3,388
13%
13%
74%
0.39
12.1
80.5
33%
51%
5 year
Woodland city, Cowlitz
5,460
1,697
20%
12%
69%
0.39
14.8
71.6
33%
53%
5 year
Bridgeport CCD, Douglas
6,421
2,100
19%
28%
53%
0.40
7.5
42.1
13%
26%
5 year
Bridgeport city, Douglas
2,506
749
24%
31%
44%
0.36
10.0
28.1
13%
35%
5 year
East Wenatchee CCD,

Douglas
29,800
10,896
11%
22%
67%
0.37
8.3
71.7
26%
47%
5 year
East Wenatchee city,

Douglas
13,293
5,060
12%
24%
63%
0.38
9.2
70.5
22%
44%
5 year
Mansfield town, Douglas
271
142
22%
29%
49%
0.44
3.3
95.6
7%
34%
5 year
Rock Island city, Douglas
683
277
27%
25%
47%
0.39
6.6
57.1
19%
45%
5 year
Waterville CCD, Douglas
2,586
980
13%
26%
61%
0.41
10.4
72.0
23%
36%
5 year
Waterville town, Douglas
1,620
583
14%
27%
59%
0.37
13.0
74.5
22%
41%
5 year
173
106
0%
92%
8%
0.20
NA
100
26%
100%
5 year
Colville Reservation
CCD, Ferry
1,681
645
21%
36%
44%
0.45
19.2
64.8
14%
30%
5 year
Curlew CCD, Ferry
1,367
502
19%
20%
61%
0.42
5.3
68.2
22%
21%
5 year
Starbuck CCD, Columbia
Barney's Junction CDP,

Ferry
Curlew Lake CDP, Ferry
542
204
9%
44%
48%
0.43
13.3
79.2
37%
66%
5 year
East Ferry CCD, Ferry
1,144
450
18%
45%
38%
0.42
25.0
87.8
32%
70%
5 year
Inchelium CDP, Ferry
597
168
24%
21%
55%
0.42
27.5
42.2
19%
34%
5 year
Republic CCD, Ferry
3,431
1,354
19%
27%
55%
0.46
11.9
71.1
19%
54%
5 year
Republic city, Ferry
1,203
518
31%
26%
42%
0.49
14.6
75.4
20%
57%
5 year
Basin City CDP, Franklin
1,300
338
33%
31%
36%
0.56
10.8
41.5
34%
20%
5 year
Connell CCD, Franklin
8,947
2,164
16%
30%
54%
0.44
7.7
65.2
14%
28%
5 year
Connell city, Franklin
4,751
1,003
18%
24%
58%
0.37
7.8
78.5
6%
32%
5 year
Kahlotus CCD, Franklin
1,392
512
8%
32%
60%
0.33
7.2
87.0
15%
22%
5 year
197
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Mesa city, Franklin
Poverty %
ALICE %
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
485
130
8%
44%
48%
0.27
5.1
43.7
13%
42%
5 year
55,374
16,062
22%
25%
53%
0.41
9.7
66.4
25%
45%
5 year
Pasco city, Franklin
70,345
18,908
21%
23%
56%
0.38
8.2
70.5
18%
51%
3 year
Pasco North CCD,

Franklin
16,122
4,707
7%
16%
77%
0.34
6.9
81.0
17%
45%
5 year
West Pasco CDP,

Franklin
2,511
901
6%
15%
79%
0.35
9.2
85.4
26%
25%
5 year
Pomeroy CCD, Garfield
1,775
768
7%
26%
67%
0.39
7.4
82.7
22%
16%
5 year
Pomeroy city, Garfield
1,469
619
9%
26%
65%
0.35
9.6
80.3
19%
17%
5 year
474
202
8%
11%
80%
0.27
7.1
90.0
13%
8%
5 year
Cascade Valley CDP,

Grant
2,760
961
19%
28%
53%
0.50
12.0
82.5
26%
54%
5 year
Coulee City CCD, Grant
1,330
541
15%
21%
64%
0.45
9.4
80.7
13%
21%
5 year
Coulee City town, Grant
594
234
22%
24%
55%
0.44
8.8
66.3
12%
20%
5 year
Desert Aire CDP, Grant
1,498
374
24%
17%
59%
0.37
2.7
85.4
29%
0%
5 year
Electric City city, Grant
1,011
435
7%
28%
66%
0.38
9.6
87.5
19%
20%
5 year
Ephrata city, Grant
7,794
2,804
19%
28%
53%
0.38
7.9
81.2
20%
37%
5 year
Ephrata-Soap Lake CCD,

Grant
17,287
6,402
18%
27%
55%
0.42
11.0
76.1
25%
38%
5 year
George CCD, Grant
2,940
880
13%
18%
69%
0.40
12.7
62.0
16%
28%
5 year
George city, Grant
768
181
14%
18%
68%
0.31
14.1
28.1
7%
14%
5 year
Gloyd CCD, Grant
1,781
596
9%
15%
76%
0.34
15.9
68.5
26%
39%
5 year
Grand Coulee CCD,

Grant
2,563
1,122
13%
29%
58%
0.43
16.2
70.3
13%
30%
5 year
Grand Coulee city, Grant
1,031
505
21%
38%
41%
0.46
10.7
72.9
13%
38%
5 year
855
434
15%
41%
44%
0.49
27.5
83.5
39%
47%
5 year
Mattawa city, Grant
4,440
914
24%
37%
39%
0.34
10.4
27.9
28%
24%
5 year
Mattawa-Royal City CCD,

Grant
14,048
3,566
23%
28%
49%
0.37
10.5
47.6
20%
21%
5 year
Moses Lake CCD, Grant
35,019
12,346
15%
29%
56%
0.42
12.6
73.3
22%
44%
5 year
Moses Lake city, Grant
21,150
7,711
13%
31%
56%
0.40
10.0
73.4
22%
40%
5 year
Moses Lake North CDP,

Grant
4,539
1,337
32%
30%
38%
0.44
21.7
58.7
37%
47%
5 year
Quincy CCD, Grant
10,305
3,059
22%
30%
49%
0.40
15.4
61.5
31%
43%
5 year
Quincy city, Grant
6,906
2,017
24%
29%
47%
0.38
15.1
59.3
34%
41%
5 year
Royal City city, Grant
1,775
507
37%
27%
36%
0.42
8.5
45.8
13%
42%
5 year
Soap Lake city, Grant
1,496
762
30%
43%
27%
0.42
16.3
73.6
24%
51%
5 year
Warden CCD, Grant
4,002
1,163
19%
27%
54%
0.39
14.8
67.1
12%
43%
5 year
Warden city, Grant
2,723
796
27%
28%
46%
0.40
16.8
60.6
18%
43%
5 year
Wilson Creek CCD, Grant
927
337
14%
29%
57%
0.38
4.5
81.6
10%
27%
5 year
Wilson Creek town,

Grant
302
115
32%
12%
56%
0.39
8.3
85.1
21%
63%
5 year
Lakeview CDP, Grant
Households
Gini
Coefficient
Pasco CCD, Franklin
Snake River CCD,

Garfield
Aberdeen city, Grays

Harbor
198
Population
Above ALICE
Theshold %
16,683
6,003
23%
23%
54%
0.46
14.5
71.1
28%
46%
5 year
Aberdeen Gardens CDP,

Grays Harbor
212
111
0%
23%
77%
0.21
13.2
68.2
10%
32%
5 year
Aberdeen-Hoquiam CCD,
Grays Harbor
32,081
12,226
21%
24%
56%
0.45
15.0
71.6
27%
46%
5 year
Brady CDP, Grays Harbor
885
339
8%
14%
78%
0.21
3.0
88.7
38%
0%
5 year
Central Park CDP, Grays

Harbor
2,683
1,092
10%
17%
73%
0.35
7.4
88.5
21%
44%
5 year
Cohassett Beach CDP,

Grays Harbor
528
201
26%
58%
15%
0.33
37.8
76.1
37%
40%
5 year
Copalis Beach CDP,

Grays Harbor
402
204
17%
47%
36%
0.38
50.5
50.7
36%
43%
5 year
Cosmopolis city, Grays

Harbor
1,502
600
7%
23%
70%
0.33
12.0
80.0
28%
26%
5 year
Elma CCD, Grays Harbor
6,759
2,355
17%
18%
65%
0.44
18.2
71.0
19%
44%
5 year
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Elma city, Grays Harbor
3,080
1,121
20%
25%
55%
0.38
22.5
68.0
26%
41%
5 year
Grayland CDP, Grays

Harbor
1,094
428
33%
21%
45%
0.41
41.3
62.1
65%
100%
5 year
Hoquiam city, Grays

Harbor
8,625
3,417
23%
29%
48%
0.47
15.5
64.5
27%
53%
5 year
Humptulips CCD, Grays

Harbor
1,057
452
13%
23%
64%
0.36
15.6
74.7
29%
0%
5 year
Humptulips CDP, Grays

Harbor
275
112
1%
29%
70%
0.21
3.5
90.3
0%
0%
5 year
Malone CDP, Grays

Harbor
486
197
26%
11%
63%
0.42
4.0
79.0
29%
100%
5 year
Malone-Porter CCD,
Grays Harbor
1,491
610
18%
14%
68%
0.38
6.0
76.7
22%
68%
5 year
McCleary CCD, Grays

Harbor
3,551
1,351
11%
23%
66%
0.37
16.4
74.1
43%
35%
5 year
McCleary city, Grays

Harbor
1,798
707
10%
26%
64%
0.37
10.9
74.8
38%
44%
5 year
Montesano CCD, Grays

Harbor
6,813
2,753
10%
22%
68%
0.41
8.7
82.0
21%
43%
5 year
Montesano city, Grays

Harbor
3,936
1,507
16%
19%
65%
0.49
10.0
78.3
17%
44%
5 year
Neilton CCD, Grays

Harbor
700
274
17%
14%
69%
0.33
6.1
79.9
20%
22%
5 year
Neilton CDP, Grays

Harbor
469
163
16%
17%
67%
0.31
6.9
77.4
22%
24%
5 year
North River CCD, Grays

Harbor
608
237
16%
13%
70%
0.34
9.6
75.3
12%
15%
5 year
Oakville CCD, Grays

Harbor
2,265
742
14%
22%
64%
0.41
12.5
69.8
29%
21%
5 year
Oakville city, Grays

Harbor
634
217
6%
35%
58%
0.31
11.7
79.8
33%
9%
5 year
Ocean City CDP, Grays

Harbor
170
101
39%
48%
14%
0.31
14.0
25.0
44%
0%
5 year
Ocean Shores CCD,

Grays Harbor
7,580
3,495
11%
26%
63%
0.42
20.4
72.3
35%
47%
5 year
Ocean Shores city, Grays

Harbor
5,584
2,627
9%
24%
67%
0.40
17.9
78.5
34%
62%
5 year
Quinault Reservation
CCD, Grays Harbor
1,067
359
28%
27%
45%
0.47
35.0
57.7
9%
20%
5 year
Satsop CDP, Grays

Harbor
567
219
15%
17%
68%
0.44
19.3
77.3
19%
45%
5 year
Taholah CDP, Grays

Harbor
863
273
29%
29%
42%
0.47
37.3
58.8
11%
21%
5 year
Westport CCD, Grays

Harbor
6,447
1,926
24%
28%
48%
0.47
26.5
72.9
39%
52%
5 year
Westport city, Grays

Harbor
1,701
879
27%
28%
45%
0.44
19.5
70.9
19%
38%
5 year
Wishkah CCD, Grays

Harbor
1,673
616
11%
19%
71%
0.37
18.4
75.1
19%
44%
5 year
Camano CDP, Island
15,456
6,426
5%
15%
79%
0.38
9.5
86.0
33%
40%
5 year
Camano Island CCD,

Island
15,456
6,426
5%
15%
79%
0.38
9.5
86.0
33%
40%
5 year
Central Whidbey Island

CCD, Island
12,891
5,786
9%
22%
69%
0.44
10.0
83.6
32%
46%
5 year
Clinton CDP, Island
894
422
0%
25%
75%
0.37
8.3
81.3
27%
65%
5 year
Coupeville town, Island
1,997
893
18%
25%
57%
0.44
12.9
73.8
33%
35%
5 year
Freeland CDP, Island
1,708
859
9%
31%
60%
0.43
6.5
89.3
52%
62%
5 year
Langley city, Island
1,138
535
23%
21%
56%
0.51
12.1
77.7
45%
54%
5 year
North Whidbey Island

CCD, Island
36,354
14,434
10%
22%
67%
0.39
10.6
87.0
33%
46%
5 year
Oak Harbor city, Island
22,219
9,274
11%
28%
62%
0.38
10.6
86.4
30%
50%
3 year
South Whidbey Island

CCD, Island
14,105
6,450
10%
15%
75%
0.45
7.2
86.1
35%
46%
5 year
Whidbey Island Station

CDP, Island
1,851
196
10%
45%
45%
0.26
9.7
74.8
NA
54%
5 year
199
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Brinnon CDP, Jefferson
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
735
405
22%
24%
54%
0.42
6.8
82.3
24%
61%
5 year
Discovery Bay-Port
Townsend CCD,
Jefferson
15,873
7,735
13%
28%
59%
0.45
10.9
78.9
32%
52%
5 year
Marrowstone CDP,
Jefferson
1,237
499
5%
20%
75%
0.38
17.9
80.6
38%
20%
5 year
Oak Bay-Port Ludlow

CCD, Jefferson
9,929
4,480
13%
25%
62%
0.44
11.7
75.1
34%
53%
5 year
Port Hadlock-Irondale
CDP, Jefferson
3,354
1,601
22%
34%
44%
0.39
13.8
55.5
32%
68%
5 year
Port Ludlow CDP,

Jefferson
2,420
1,154
2%
19%
79%
0.37
5.5
87.0
28%
50%
5 year
Port Townsend city,

Jefferson
9,136
4,522
14%
30%
56%
0.46
12.4
78.1
39%
47%
5 year
Quilcene Bay-Brinnon
CCD, Jefferson
2,980
1,372
15%
26%
59%
0.45
12.0
79.5
27%
44%
5 year
Quilcene CDP, Jefferson
578
252
7%
31%
62%
0.43
9.2
88.2
36%
0%
5 year
West End CCD, Jefferson
1,100
214
36%
15%
49%
0.48
13.7
65.0
28%
36%
5 year
Algona city, King
3,047
931
11%
16%
72%
0.38
13.4
67.5
48%
58%
5 year
Ames Lake CDP, King
1,288
543
0%
14%
86%
0.43
1.6
94.1
18%
68%
5 year
Auburn city, King
73,882
29,139
13%
19%
67%
0.45
7.8
82.8
30%
51%
1 year
Baring CDP, King
209
113
28%
28%
43%
0.45
5.8
82.4
43%
27%
5 year
Beaux Arts Village town,

King
450
147
1%
1%
99%
0.41
5.8
82.9
26%
17%
5 year
Bellevue city, King
133,990
52,279
7%
11%
82%
0.47
7.1
85.7
26%
40%
1 year
Black Diamond city, King
4,201
1,592
3%
13%
84%
0.35
4.9
90.2
44%
37%
5 year
Boulevard Park CDP,

King
4,370
1,714
15%
21%
64%
0.37
15.5
66.0
47%
53%
5 year
Bryn Mawr-Skyway CDP,

King
16,323
6,351
12%
19%
69%
0.41
10.0
78.9
38%
52%
5 year
Burien city, King
49,353
18,371
17%
21%
62%
0.45
8.3
74.8
36%
50%
3 year
Carnation city, King
2,131
723
7%
16%
77%
0.37
8.0
88.1
41%
52%
5 year
Clyde Hill city, King
3,059
988
2%
3%
94%
0.46
8.2
96.3
31%
25%
5 year
Cottage Lake CDP, King
23,298
8,293
4%
5%
91%
0.43
4.1
95.2
31%
36%
5 year
Covington city, King
18,008
5,957
5%
5%
90%
0.29
5.9
89.8
33%
52%
5 year
Des Moines city, King
30,391
11,559
13%
16%
71%
0.41
9.0
69.6
38%
45%
3 year
Duvall city, King
6,962
2,206
7%
6%
87%
0.36
8.3
91.0
29%
47%
5 year
East Renton Highlands

CDP, King
12,640
4,483
4%
10%
86%
0.35
7.5
88.6
29%
34%
5 year
Enumclaw city, King
11,193
4,258
12%
18%
70%
0.44
8.2
81.1
35%
48%
5 year
Enumclaw Plateau CCD,

King
65,354
23,929
9%
11%
80%
0.40
8.7
84.9
36%
47%
5 year
Fairwood CDP (King),

King
19,687
7,350
5%
11%
84%
0.36
5.8
82.2
27%
42%
3 year
Fall City CDP, King
2,090
852
6%
15%
79%
0.36
3.9
71.6
40%
48%
5 year
Federal Way city, King
92,717
32,142
15%
15%
70%
0.42
7.1
76.8
29%
50%
1 year
Federal Way-Auburn
CCD, King
170,756
63,383
14%
18%
68%
0.41
10.8
75.8
36%
52%
5 year
6,820
2,546
7%
8%
85%
0.39
8.0
88.7
29%
23%
5 year
428
159
8%
2%
90%
0.63
6.9
100
43%
59%
5 year
Issaquah city, King
32,720
13,431
4%
11%
84%
0.43
5.6
89.7
34%
36%
3 year
Issaquah Plateau CCD,

King
74,793
27,288
4%
7%
89%
0.40
6.0
93.9
31%
39%
5 year
Hobart CDP, King

Hunts Point town, King
200
Population
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Kenmore city, King
21,282
7,968
8%
13%
79%
0.42
7.4
88.3
33%
52%
3 year
Kent city, King
124,410
43,876
20%
16%
65%
0.43
9.8
74.7
34%
56%
1 year
Kirkland city, King
84,434
35,441
6%
11%
83%
0.46
7.5
87.6
35%
35%
1 year
Klahanie CDP, King
12,138
4,328
5%
5%
90%
0.31
6.3
94.0
29%
38%
5 year
Lake Forest Park city,

King
12,811
5,017
5%
10%
86%
0.42
6.9
89.2
33%
42%
5 year
Lake Holm CDP, King
3,705
1,370
6%
5%
89%
0.45
3.9
96.3
25%
27%
5 year
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Lake Marcel-Stillwater
CDP, King
1,219
422
0%
3%
97%
0.42
4.2
92.2
20%
0%
5 year
Lake Morton-Berrydale
CDP, King
9,847
3,765
6%
6%
87%
0.36
6.2
89.7
33%
48%
5 year
Lakeland North CDP,

King
13,963
4,796
7%
11%
81%
0.36
9.8
79.1
36%
45%
5 year
Lakeland South CDP,

King
13,451
4,633
6%
10%
83%
0.35
9.7
82.5
30%
47%
5 year
Maple Heights-Lake
Desire CDP, King
3,085
1,234
3%
10%
87%
0.37
3.2
88.8
21%
11%
5 year
Maple Valley city, King
24,141
8,057
4%
8%
89%
0.34
9.4
90.8
32%
48%
5 year
Medina city, King
3,024
1,046
5%
7%
87%
0.56
1.5
96.8
33%
39%
5 year
Mercer Island city, King
23,705
9,439
4%
9%
87%
0.49
5.0
95.1
31%
37%
3 year
Mirrormont CDP, King
4,576
1,630
4%
3%
93%
0.33
7.1
96.5
37%
25%
5 year
Newcastle city, King
10,599
4,140
4%
7%
89%
0.43
6.2
92.9
32%
35%
5 year
Normandy Park city,

King
6,432
2,638
3%
12%
85%
0.44
8.1
87.6
30%
40%
5 year
North Bend city, King
5,951
2,257
14%
10%
76%
0.48
6.0
86.6
32%
43%
5 year
Pacific city, King
6,816
2,287
15%
18%
67%
0.41
14.4
75.6
35%
54%
5 year
Ravensdale CDP, King
1,217
407
0%
13%
87%
0.32
6.7
84.6
36%
34%
5 year
Redmond city, King
56,526
23,651
7%
9%
84%
0.42
5.7
90.3
24%
36%
3 year
Renton city, King
96,987
38,197
13%
18%
70%
0.43
6.3
76.5
27%
53%
1 year
Riverbend CDP, King
2,029
830
6%
7%
87%
0.31
2.9
94.5
45%
21%
5 year
Sammamish city, King
49,075
15,757
3%
4%
93%
0.36
4.9
97.0
25%
28%
3 year
SeaTac city, King
27,611
9,589
19%
23%
59%
0.39
12.5
65.0
42%
52%
3 year
Seattle CCD, King
983,411
421,182
13%
17%
71%
0.47
7.8
82.4
34%
47%
5 year
Seattle city, King
652,429
297,920
13%
14%
73%
0.49
5.9
85.3
28%
43%
1 year
Seattle East CCD, King
556,466
220,873
7%
11%
83%
0.45
7.1
87.3
32%
41%
5 year
Shadow Lake CDP, King
2,744
1,013
6%
10%
85%
0.33
6.4
86.6
33%
64%
5 year
Shoreline city, King
54,312
21,056
11%
14%
75%
0.45
9.9
81.2
37%
51%
3 year
Snoqualmie city, King
11,087
3,760
2%
5%
93%
0.33
5.5
94.4
39%
33%
5 year
Snoqualmie Valley CCD,

King
48,974
18,012
6%
7%
87%
0.40
6.2
89.3
36%
39%
5 year
Tahoma-Maple Valley
CCD, King
63,691
22,799
5%
7%
88%
0.34
6.8
89.1
34%
48%
5 year
Tanner CDP, King
1,091
367
0%
5%
95%
0.35
3.2
97.0
24%
0%
5 year
Tukwila city, King
19,366
7,279
20%
22%
58%
0.41
10.8
67.9
43%
58%
5 year
Union Hill-Novelty Hill

CDP, King
20,247
8,165
2%
6%
91%
0.43
4.4
95.3
24%
41%
5 year
Vashon CDP, King
11,122
5,140
7%
16%
77%
0.44
6.3
90.7
29%
54%
5 year
Vashon Island CCD, King
11,122
5,140
7%
16%
77%
0.44
6.3
90.7
29%
54%
5 year
White Center CDP, King
14,848
5,476
21%
23%
56%
0.42
11.6
66.7
42%
57%
5 year
Wilderness Rim CDP,

King
1,402
650
2%
5%
93%
0.29
6.3
82.0
44%
62%
5 year
Woodinville city, King
11,089
4,652
5%
10%
85%
0.42
5.4
90.3
23%
49%
5 year
Yarrow Point town, King
1,179
424
2%
4%
95%
0.55
4.0
98.2
37%
48%
5 year
Bainbridge Island CCD,

Kitsap
23,084
9,482
6%
10%
85%
0.49
7.5
90.8
32%
42%
5 year
Bainbridge Island city,

Kitsap
23,227
9,586
6%
10%
84%
0.49
7.0
89.1
33%
33%
3 year
Bangor Base CDP, Kitsap
5,637
1,191
8%
23%
69%
0.31
12.8
98.5
NA
63%
5 year
Bethel CDP, Kitsap
3,587
1,345
12%
8%
80%
0.35
11.6
82.5
29%
39%
5 year
Bremerton CCD, Kitsap
108,058
42,444
11%
13%
76%
0.41
10.1
82.1
29%
50%
5 year
Bremerton city, Kitsap
39,197
15,247
21%
18%
61%
0.43
11.9
77.9
31%
53%
3 year
Burley CDP, Kitsap
2,133
758
14%
14%
72%
0.36
9.2
75.8
35%
46%
5 year
Chico CDP, Kitsap
2,183
870
5%
9%
86%
0.38
4.0
89.3
22%
43%
5 year
East Port Orchard CDP,

Kitsap
4,711
1,887
13%
15%
73%
0.41
8.5
83.7
30%
53%
5 year
201
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Enetai CDP, Kitsap
2,052
838
3%
9%
88%
0.31
8.1
79.3
21%
15%
5 year
Erlands Point-Kitsap
Lake CDP, Kitsap
2,593
1,106
6%
16%
78%
0.39
10.5
77.6
22%
47%
5 year
376
164
34%
0%
76%
0.39
NA
76.2
65%
55%
5 year
Hansville CDP, Kitsap
3,897
1,648
6%
10%
84%
0.36
7.5
87.8
35%
42%
5 year
Indianola CDP, Kitsap
3,375
1,380
9%
10%
81%
0.41
7.6
85.9
35%
44%
5 year
466
205
0%
0%
100%
0.19
NA
100
58%
100%
5 year
Kingston CCD, Kitsap
12,483
4,746
7%
11%
82%
0.38
10.8
81.2
32%
42%
5 year
Kingston CDP, Kitsap
1,997
889
3%
20%
77%
0.40
7.5
84.7
30%
67%
5 year
Lofall CDP, Kitsap
2,173
862
10%
6%
85%
0.43
10.8
85.8
22%
58%
5 year
Manchester CDP, Kitsap
5,326
2,089
6%
13%
81%
0.37
10.6
85.1
34%
19%
5 year
Navy Yard City CDP,

Kitsap
2,513
1,124
27%
7%
66%
0.41
23.5
66.2
46%
53%
5 year
Parkwood CDP, Kitsap
7,189
2,821
12%
14%
74%
0.38
9.3
75.8
30%
48%
5 year
781
218
17%
13%
71%
0.37
20.6
70.2
23%
57%
5 year
Port Orchard CCD,

Kitsap
66,469
25,055
11%
11%
79%
0.39
10.1
82.3
31%
49%
5 year
Port Orchard city, Kitsap
12,260
4,507
14%
13%
72%
0.47
10.7
80.8
28%
54%
5 year
Poulsbo CCD, Kitsap
42,593
15,895
7%
11%
82%
0.39
8.5
87.3
30%
50%
5 year
Poulsbo city, Kitsap
9,310
3,671
9%
16%
75%
0.40
7.8
83.8
36%
43%
5 year
Rocky Point CDP, Kitsap
1,670
724
10%
11%
79%
0.41
4.7
85.2
31%
39%
5 year
Seabeck CDP, Kitsap
1,010
477
0%
15%
85%
0.40
6.9
90.9
40%
0%
5 year
Silverdale CDP, Kitsap
19,775
8,213
8%
12%
80%
0.43
11.1
86.0
24%
50%
5 year
Southworth CDP, Kitsap
2,371
865
7%
3%
90%
0.32
5.1
93.4
15%
60%
5 year
Suquamish CDP, Kitsap
4,059
1,711
11%
14%
75%
0.42
8.6
79.1
33%
45%
5 year
Tracyton CDP, Kitsap
5,584
2,112
10%
11%
79%
0.38
9.8
84.3
29%
48%
5 year
Cle Elum CCD, Kittitas
6,201
2,884
9%
26%
65%
0.41
12.7
73.0
34%
52%
5 year
Cle Elum city, Kittitas
2,397
1,011
17%
33%
50%
0.41
13.0
67.6
32%
56%
5 year
374
137
8%
35%
57%
0.35
14.0
67.9
25%
40%
5 year
Ellensburg CCD, Kittitas
20,563
7,985
39%
21%
40%
0.49
9.5
81.2
28%
65%
5 year
Ellensburg city, Kittitas
18,312
7,174
42%
20%
38%
0.50
9.4
81.6
23%
65%
5 year
Kittitas CCD, Kittitas
4,529
1,678
12%
19%
69%
0.38
12.9
76.6
29%
31%
5 year
Kittitas city, Kittitas
1,376
523
19%
27%
54%
0.33
17.4
66.2
28%
45%
5 year
Manastash Ridge CCD,

Kittitas
5,307
2,140
9%
18%
73%
0.37
11.9
79.3
31%
20%
5 year
Northeast Kittitas CCD,

Kittitas
4,691
1,851
11%
15%
74%
0.38
6.4
85.6
33%
63%
5 year
Roslyn city, Kittitas
885
356
12%
24%
63%
0.36
16.9
66.6
34%
16%
5 year
Snoqualmie Pass CDP,

Kittitas
227
127
2%
18%
80%
0.31
14.1
66.8
65%
72%
5 year
South Cle Elum town,

Kittitas
560
235
9%
30%
62%
0.33
15.9
70.1
36%
27%
5 year
Thorp CDP, Kittitas
320
116
10%
17%
72%
0.37
29.9
61.9
9%
7%
5 year
Bingen city, Klickitat
955
277
4%
40%
55%
0.37
12.0
61.7
36%
14%
5 year
Dallesport CDP, Klickitat
1,265
530
6%
33%
61%
0.35
3.7
69.6
22%
88%
5 year
Dallesport-Klickitat CCD,
Klickitat
4,034
1,726
12%
31%
57%
0.41
6.1
70.1
26%
66%
5 year
Goldendale CCD,
Klickitat
7,677
3,060
18%
30%
53%
0.40
11.8
77.2
26%
44%
5 year
Goldendale city, Klickitat
3,433
1,465
17%
32%
50%
0.40
12.6
81.5
20%
44%
5 year
Horse Heaven Hills

Plateau CCD, Klickitat
1,249
390
23%
22%
55%
0.39
10.3
65.5
13%
55%
5 year
Klickitat CDP, Klickitat
287
130
7%
55%
38%
0.36
NA
61.4
7%
73%
5 year
Lyle CDP, Klickitat
445
193
7%
42%
51%
0.26
4.0
88.6
41%
51%
5 year
Trout Lake CDP, Klickitat
503
189
7%
25%
68%
0.41
5.6
75.4
36%
61%
5 year
7,074
2,636
8%
25%
67%
0.41
9.8
79.1
31%
41%
5 year
Gorst CDP, Kitsap
Keyport CDP, Kitsap
Port Gamble Tribal

Community CDP, Kitsap
Easton CDP, Kittitas
Unemployment
Rate
Population
White Salmon CCD,

Klickitat
202
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
White Salmon city,

Klickitat
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
2,066
929
13%
30%
57%
0.41
9.3
78.3
43%
41%
5 year
Wishram CDP, Klickitat
353
164
33%
16%
51%
0.42
4.3
63.6
6%
62%
5 year
Yakama Nation
Reservation CCD,
Klickitat
503
207
16%
23%
61%
0.40
20.2
60.6
28%
11%
5 year
Big Bottom CCD, Lewis
2,725
1,400
15%
35%
50%
0.46
9.9
75.5
30%
48%
5 year
Bunker CCD, Lewis
3,498
1,258
11%
27%
62%
0.39
9.8
85.4
28%
30%
5 year
Centralia city, Lewis
16,611
6,744
21%
29%
50%
0.42
15.1
77.3
33%
55%
5 year
Centralia-Chehalis CCD,
Lewis
31,014
12,205
17%
31%
52%
0.44
14.7
78.2
29%
54%
5 year
Chehalis city, Lewis
7,284
2,847
12%
41%
47%
0.40
11.0
78.0
28%
56%
5 year
Ethel CCD, Lewis
3,252
1,271
10%
30%
60%
0.40
11.0
72.9
34%
43%
5 year
Fords Prairie CDP, Lewis
1,825
837
10%
35%
55%
0.44
16.0
83.6
15%
27%
5 year
Logan Hill CCD, Lewis
3,431
1,368
15%
14%
71%
0.35
23.3
74.3
29%
17%
5 year
Mineral CCD, Lewis
3,936
1,725
18%
29%
53%
0.47
22.9
73.1
28%
32%
5 year
Mineral CDP, Lewis
152
122
7%
69%
24%
0.12
NA
48.2
14%
52%
5 year
Morton CCD, Lewis
2,638
1,149
17%
26%
57%
0.38
11.8
83.2
13%
34%
5 year
Morton city, Lewis
1,001
468
18%
31%
51%
0.39
12.7
84.0
16%
44%
5 year
Mossyrock CCD, Lewis
4,627
1,998
8%
28%
64%
0.35
12.8
77.7
25%
30%
5 year
Mossyrock city, Lewis
847
310
17%
33%
50%
0.34
7.9
55.3
24%
39%
5 year
Napavine CCD, Lewis
6,228
2,102
7%
16%
77%
0.32
6.6
82.1
25%
16%
5 year
Napavine city, Lewis
1,892
640
9%
18%
73%
0.36
12.0
83.2
31%
26%
5 year
Newaukum Prairie CCD,

Lewis
2,792
907
5%
18%
77%
0.32
6.3
74.7
27%
22%
5 year
Onalaska CDP, Lewis
701
274
0%
27%
73%
0.27
19.7
82.3
29%
0%
5 year
Packwood CDP, Lewis
330
181
7%
50%
43%
0.29
NA
46.8
49%
0%
5 year
Pe Ell town, Lewis
562
254
19%
32%
48%
0.41
22.8
70.3
25%
67%
5 year
Toledo city, Lewis
749
283
23%
34%
43%
0.44
5.8
80.9
18%
52%
5 year
3,740
1,434
19%
26%
55%
0.44
10.5
81.3
29%
55%
5 year
557
201
17%
32%
51%
0.33
12.2
83.5
41%
46%
5 year
Winlock city, Lewis
1,787
529
17%
33%
51%
0.36
17.6
61.6
33%
70%
5 year
Winlock-Pe Ell CCD,

Lewis
7,538
2,710
15%
24%
61%
0.38
13.6
74.8
28%
58%
5 year
Almira town, Lincoln
268
122
9%
34%
57%
0.36
5.0
91.8
26%
42%
5 year
Creston town, Lincoln
260
121
22%
30%
48%
0.41
28.9
80.6
18%
28%
5 year
Davenport CCD, Lincoln
5,046
1,986
12%
17%
71%
0.40
4.6
79.5
25%
25%
5 year
Davenport city, Lincoln
1,820
738
18%
21%
62%
0.42
2.3
79.5
30%
44%
5 year
Harrington city, Lincoln
332
173
9%
17%
73%
0.34
6.2
83.5
10%
27%
5 year
Odessa CCD, Lincoln
2,985
1,353
14%
24%
63%
0.43
5.8
81.8
21%
31%
5 year
Odessa town, Lincoln
861
417
13%
40%
47%
0.45
6.4
73.6
25%
31%
5 year
Reardan town, Lincoln
622
299
5%
37%
58%
0.34
9.7
84.5
20%
16%
5 year
Sprague city, Lincoln
517
249
10%
32%
58%
0.35
6.1
74.3
19%
47%
5 year
Wilbur CCD, Lincoln
2,450
1,118
12%
29%
60%
0.45
6.4
79.9
27%
28%
5 year
Toledo-Vader CCD, Lewis

Vader city, Lewis
Wilbur town, Lincoln
686
339
12%
37%
52%
0.38
4.2
72.9
38%
43%
5 year
Allyn CDP, Mason
1,887
806
1%
17%
82%
0.31
4.2
100
30%
0%
5 year
Belfair CDP, Mason
3,433
1,236
18%
24%
57%
0.38
20.8
66.2
30%
45%
5 year
Belfair-Tahuya CCD,
Mason
8,368
3,274
15%
23%
62%
0.39
19.2
71.3
28%
40%
5 year
Grapeview CDP, Mason
1,232
496
12%
20%
69%
0.41
26.6
63.4
20%
100%
5 year
Hoodsport CDP, Mason
900
359
22%
30%
48%
0.32
23.6
45.4
58%
79%
5 year
Kamilche CCD, Mason
3,802
1,504
13%
24%
63%
0.37
15.2
70.9
33%
43%
5 year
Shelton CCD, Mason
19,847
6,785
18%
23%
59%
0.41
10.9
72.7
34%
47%
5 year
Shelton city, Mason
9,830
3,453
23%
26%
51%
0.42
13.2
68.2
37%
54%
5 year
612
178
33%
26%
41%
0.57
27.0
59.2
20%
48%
5 year
Skokomish CDP, Mason
203
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Skokomish Reservation
CCD, Mason
Timber Lake-Harstine
Island CCD, Mason
Union CDP, Mason
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
662
204
31%
25%
44%
0.56
27.2
59.2
20%
44%
5 year
7,172
3,044
8%
31%
62%
0.43
15.7
77.9
34%
56%
5 year
470
259
17%
12%
71%
0.34
NA
66.8
39%
NA
5 year
13,824
5,605
10%
18%
72%
0.39
13.1
80.9
31%
62%
5 year
West Mason CCD, Mason
6,972
2,942
20%
22%
59%
0.43
19.0
70.7
31%
61%
5 year
Brewster city, Okanogan
2,167
620
22%
33%
45%
0.44
6.3
37.9
29%
41%
5 year
Brewster-Wakefield CCD,
Okanogan
4,834
1,363
17%
21%
62%
0.44
10.7
51.7
22%
35%
5 year
Colville Reservation
CCD, Okanogan
6,013
2,089
25%
16%
60%
0.46
19.2
65.6
17%
36%
5 year
Conconully-Riverside
CCD, Okanogan
2,724
1,125
15%
13%
72%
0.40
5.3
73.8
17%
32%
5 year
Coulee Dam town,

Okanogan
1,427
522
14%
10%
76%
0.33
20.8
67.9
21%
25%
5 year
Early Winters CCD,

Okanogan
285
145
0%
18%
82%
0.23
NA
88.1
4%
47%
5 year
Elmer City town,

Okanogan
340
119
14%
8%
77%
0.39
18.8
82.7
7%
13%
5 year
Malott CDP, Okanogan
487
201
33%
4%
63%
0.38
4.6
23.7
18%
44%
5 year
5,406
2,471
14%
25%
60%
0.42
7.7
73.9
29%
34%
5 year
North Omak CDP,

Okanogan
736
243
27%
19%
54%
0.35
25.6
80.6
62%
32%
5 year
Okanogan CCD,
Okanogan
4,182
1,656
23%
14%
62%
0.44
9.4
63.7
11%
45%
5 year
Okanogan city,
Okanogan
2,573
1,041
29%
17%
54%
0.47
10.3
63.5
16%
45%
5 year
Omak CCD, Okanogan
6,303
2,484
15%
21%
64%
0.39
9.9
78.5
17%
61%
5 year
Omak city, Okanogan
4,820
1,871
22%
24%
53%
0.43
7.4
73.7
18%
62%
5 year
Oroville CCD, Okanogan
7,242
3,095
22%
21%
57%
0.44
10.7
62.0
25%
33%
5 year
Oroville city, Okanogan
1,871
818
23%
30%
47%
0.42
12.7
64.7
20%
60%
5 year
Pateros city, Okanogan
541
216
15%
21%
63%
0.42
5.6
68.3
24%
46%
5 year
Riverside town,
Okanogan
554
218
21%
31%
49%
0.38
12.2
48.4
24%
64%
5 year
Tonasket CCD,
Okanogan
4,154
1,552
23%
24%
53%
0.42
13.4
62.5
21%
38%
5 year
Tonasket city, Okanogan
1,267
611
29%
38%
33%
0.47
16.4
72.7
22%
47%
5 year
Twisp town, Okanogan
1,035
522
28%
27%
45%
0.45
16.8
69.1
25%
25%
5 year
409
212
15%
25%
60%
0.35
4.3
82.2
35%
35%
5 year
Winthrop town,
Okanogan
Chinook CDP, Pacific
Unemployment
Rate
Union-Grapeview CCD,
Mason
Methow Valley CCD,

Okanogan
224
102
36%
36%
27%
0.60
9.3
79.3
77%
0%
5 year
Ilwaco city, Pacific
1,074
488
17%
26%
57%
0.40
5.4
65.6
33%
49%
5 year
Long Beach city, Pacific
1,508
806
21%
31%
48%
0.45
12.3
73.9
33%
34%
5 year
Long Beach-North Beach

Peninsula CCD, Pacific
9,248
4,452
14%
24%
62%
0.44
10.7
72.8
28%
41%
5 year
Naselle CCD, Pacific
1,971
795
13%
22%
65%
0.45
6.2
77.9
40%
11%
5 year
Naselle CDP, Pacific
387
176
16%
16%
68%
0.32
2.5
81.2
39%
0%
5 year
Ocean Park CDP, Pacific
1,333
612
18%
34%
48%
0.47
36.2
76.8
22%
83%
5 year
Raymond CCD, Pacific
7,794
3,405
20%
21%
59%
0.46
8.3
70.6
20%
51%
5 year
Raymond city, Pacific
2,856
1,135
23%
23%
54%
0.45
10.5
69.0
28%
56%
5 year
South Bend city, Pacific
1,732
758
25%
25%
50%
0.43
10.0
59.1
29%
42%
5 year
Willapa Valley CCD,

Pacific
1,768
714
13%
14%
73%
0.39
13.3
87.1
18%
48%
5 year
Ione town, Pend Oreille

Ione-Metaline Falls CCD,
Pend Oreille
Metaline Falls town,
Pend Oreille
204
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
323
153
18%
18%
64%
0.38
11.3
81.9
30%
32%
5 year
2,083
922
16%
18%
66%
0.40
15.4
81.9
15%
29%
5 year
231
146
19%
31%
50%
0.43
12.1
67.1
20%
24%
5 year
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Newport CCD, Pend

Oreille
10,873
4,562
22%
20%
58%
0.49
12.4
76.5
24%
53%
5 year
Newport city, Pend

Oreille
2,291
842
24%
21%
54%
0.45
11.6
74.0
32%
57%
5 year
Alderton CDP, Pierce
2,656
1,050
8%
23%
69%
0.35
10.1
84.8
35%
51%
5 year
Anderson Island CDP,

Pierce
904
488
7%
34%
59%
0.48
14.0
86.8
39%
67%
5 year
Artondale CDP, Pierce
12,865
4,488
4%
14%
82%
0.42
4.7
90.6
27%
49%
5 year
347
217
0%
65%
35%
0.22
NA
53.6
23%
0%
5 year
Bonney Lake city, Pierce
17,688
6,135
6%
13%
81%
0.33
7.2
88.6
31%
56%
5 year
Browns Point CDP,

Pierce
1,267
553
5%
11%
84%
0.50
4.4
89.7
33%
37%
5 year
Buckley CCD, Pierce
20,970
7,240
8%
18%
74%
0.37
11.1
85.0
37%
49%
5 year
Buckley city, Pierce
4,411
1,442
8%
21%
71%
0.34
8.9
88.1
49%
44%
5 year
Canterwood CDP, Pierce
3,698
1,282
2%
10%
88%
0.45
9.0
91.5
24%
8%
5 year
Carbonado town, Pierce
616
210
8%
20%
72%
0.36
12.3
79.8
26%
64%
5 year
Clear Lake CDP (Pierce),

Pierce
890
330
1%
33%
66%
0.31
26.4
74.6
24%
51%
5 year
Clover Creek CDP, Pierce
6,876
2,686
10%
25%
65%
0.41
10.7
80.5
27%
61%
5 year
Crocker CDP, Pierce
1,108
407
1%
18%
80%
0.31
18.6
73.4
40%
0%
5 year
760
359
9%
9%
83%
0.42
9.0
89.6
38%
37%
5 year
DuPont city, Pierce
8,548
2,973
3%
11%
86%
0.30
5.2
96.5
38%
44%
5 year
Eatonville CCD, Pierce
5,527
2,312
12%
30%
58%
0.42
7.4
76.3
40%
52%
5 year
Eatonville town, Pierce
2,780
1,022
9%
21%
69%
0.38
4.5
84.6
36%
61%
5 year
Edgewood city, Pierce
9,482
3,821
6%
20%
74%
0.38
7.8
88.0
38%
45%
5 year
Elk Plain CDP, Pierce
14,410
4,769
8%
15%
77%
0.33
14.6
82.8
34%
35%
5 year
Fife city, Pierce
9,226
3,636
12%
25%
63%
0.36
10.2
77.4
39%
44%
5 year
Fife Heights CDP, Pierce
2,017
653
6%
9%
85%
0.34
6.1
82.0
34%
25%
5 year
Fircrest city, Pierce
6,547
2,689
6%
21%
73%
0.37
7.5
89.7
37%
59%
5 year
Fort Lewis CDP, Pierce
13,816
2,920
8%
43%
49%
0.30
9.1
95.9
100%
65%
5 year
Fort Lewis-DuPont CCD,

Pierce
28,715
7,174
6%
29%
65%
0.35
8.2
96.8
38%
60%
5 year
Fox Island CDP, Pierce
3,816
1,394
5%
8%
87%
0.42
7.8
90.7
31%
44%
5 year
Frederickson CDP,
Pierce
18,920
6,196
6%
15%
79%
0.31
10.6
83.0
38%
45%
5 year
Gig Harbor city, Pierce
7,367
3,352
12%
17%
72%
0.50
9.8
85.0
34%
48%
5 year
Gig Harbor Peninsula

CCD, Pierce
49,744
18,744
6%
15%
79%
0.45
7.4
89.1
31%
43%
5 year
Graham CDP, Pierce
24,991
8,309
6%
14%
80%
0.34
6.7
89.9
34%
37%
3 year
Graham-Thrift CCD,
Pierce
81,326
26,912
6%
15%
78%
0.34
10.0
84.8
36%
46%
5 year
Home CDP, Pierce
1,494
571
8%
27%
65%
0.41
10.4
77.7
40%
43%
5 year
Key Center CDP, Pierce
4,270
1,462
7%
20%
73%
0.36
13.1
82.3
39%
49%
5 year
Key Peninsula-Anderson
Island CCD, Pierce
14,851
5,438
9%
24%
67%
0.41
13.1
80.0
39%
46%
5 year
Lake Tapps CDP, Pierce
12,202
4,104
4%
9%
87%
0.35
7.2
91.0
38%
48%
5 year
Lakewood city, Pierce
58,885
24,204
19%
28%
53%
0.46
16.4
78.5
30%
52%
3 year
Longbranch CDP, Pierce
3,357
1,425
12%
27%
61%
0.42
11.7
80.7
49%
31%
5 year
Maplewood CDP, Pierce
5,096
1,955
5%
13%
81%
0.41
8.7
90.3
32%
30%
5 year
McChord AFB CDP,

Pierce
2,972
755
4%
49%
47%
0.27
9.8
99.4
NA
68%
5 year
McKenna CDP, Pierce
518
225
8%
32%
60%
0.41
13.7
80.6
0%
100%
5 year
McMillin CDP, Pierce
1,707
573
2%
11%
87%
0.30
6.5
74.8
43%
NA
5 year
Midland CDP, Pierce
9,198
3,326
16%
35%
50%
0.38
15.0
65.1
47%
67%
5 year
Milton city, Pierce
7,180
2,986
9%
18%
73%
0.42
9.7
83.7
41%
44%
5 year
Mount Rainier CCD,

Pierce
3,253
1,165
4%
18%
78%
0.33
14.7
80.3
39%
28%
5 year
Ashford CDP, Pierce
Dash Point CDP, Pierce
205
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Nisqually Indian
Community CDP, Pierce
Poverty %
ALICE %
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
588
174
16%
14%
70%
0.37
25.4
60.5
16%
15%
5 year
2,975
457
8%
23%
69%
0.28
22.9
100
NA
55%
5 year
North Puyallup CDP,

Pierce
1,807
916
17%
20%
63%
0.35
18.3
56.8
37%
19%
5 year
Orting city, Pierce
6,817
2,243
9%
14%
77%
0.34
8.2
78.1
32%
41%
5 year
Parkland CDP, Pierce
37,705
13,224
17%
27%
56%
0.39
13.1
74.6
30%
45%
3 year
Prairie Heights CDP,

Pierce
4,281
1,533
8%
15%
77%
0.34
13.4
82.4
23%
56%
5 year
Prairie Ridge CDP, Pierce
11,313
3,957
8%
18%
74%
0.35
10.1
86.0
38%
55%
5 year
Purdy CDP, Pierce
1,228
580
8%
21%
71%
0.31
7.0
84.1
37%
43%
5 year
Puyallup CCD, Pierce
153,005
57,882
7%
20%
73%
0.38
9.6
83.9
33%
48%
5 year
Puyallup city, Pierce
38,130
14,837
9%
21%
71%
0.39
10.0
79.8
28%
48%
3 year
335
179
0%
15%
85%
0.35
NA
88.2
29%
0%
5 year
Rosedale CDP, Pierce
4,368
1,224
10%
18%
73%
0.44
8.6
87.9
37%
52%
5 year
Roy CCD, Pierce
14,398
5,216
12%
19%
69%
0.38
13.7
80.6
33%
56%
5 year
Roy city, Pierce
627
223
12%
20%
68%
0.36
12.5
72.5
11%
37%
5 year
Ruston town, Pierce
817
364
7%
14%
79%
0.38
4.6
92.4
39%
31%
5 year
South Creek CDP, Pierce
2,241
843
4%
21%
76%
0.31
20.2
71.8
31%
88%
5 year
South Hill CDP, Pierce
55,286
18,068
7%
16%
77%
0.36
9.1
84.2
31%
50%
3 year
478
180
21%
21%
58%
0.42
12.8
76.1
53%
48%
5 year
Spanaway CDP, Pierce
27,041
9,440
9%
25%
66%
0.35
10.0
79.0
32%
44%
3 year
Stansberry Lake CDP,

Pierce
2,134
749
2%
23%
75%
0.35
12.9
74.1
22%
56%
5 year
Steilacoom town, Pierce
6,045
2,473
6%
23%
70%
0.42
5.8
84.6
19%
46%
5 year
Summit CDP, Pierce
7,953
3,368
6%
19%
75%
0.38
4.9
86.8
31%
35%
5 year
Summit View CDP, Pierce
6,875
2,572
15%
20%
66%
0.35
14.7
80.0
47%
49%
5 year
Sumner city, Pierce
9,506
3,813
8%
30%
62%
0.39
12.6
76.2
24%
48%
5 year
Tacoma CCD, Pierce
433,645
168,540
14%
26%
60%
0.43
11.9
78.0
35%
51%
5 year
Tacoma city, Pierce
203,451
81,498
16%
25%
59%
0.45
9.4
76.0
33%
49%
1 year
University Place city,

Pierce
31,697
12,665
10%
28%
62%
0.44
12.1
86.5
31%
52%
3 year
5 year
South Prairie town,

Pierce
Vaughn CDP, Pierce
Households
Gini
Coefficient
North Fort Lewis CDP,

Pierce
Raft Island CDP, Pierce
206
Population
Above ALICE
Theshold %
668
264
17%
18%
64%
0.42
11.3
79.2
22%
NA
Waller CDP, Pierce
7,367
3,080
5%
25%
70%
0.45
8.0
86.1
32%
33%
5 year
Wauna CDP, Pierce
4,300
1,637
5%
17%
78%
0.40
10.2
86.5
36%
12%
5 year
Wilkeson town, Pierce
424
159
8%
23%
70%
0.32
6.8
81.8
45%
35%
5 year
Wollochet CDP, Pierce
6,663
2,645
5%
16%
79%
0.48
5.5
90.2
33%
48%
5 year
Friday Harbor town, San

Juan
2,367
1,110
13%
29%
58%
0.46
8.6
66.7
38%
43%
5 year
Lopez CCD, San Juan
2,801
1,418
14%
19%
68%
0.47
5.4
81.3
29%
47%
5 year
Orcas CCD, San Juan
5,056
2,560
11%
25%
64%
0.51
5.5
74.5
37%
47%
5 year
San Juan Island CCD,

San Juan
7,929
3,775
9%
21%
70%
0.48
7.0
77.3
38%
46%
5 year
Anacortes CCD, Skagit
20,232
8,798
10%
22%
68%
0.43
7.2
82.3
29%
47%
5 year
Anacortes city, Skagit
15,879
6,795
10%
22%
68%
0.42
7.2
82.5
28%
48%
5 year
Bay View CCD, Skagit
3,600
1,438
1%
20%
79%
0.37
3.4
86.0
20%
42%
5 year
Bay View CDP, Skagit
693
280
0%
16%
84%
0.36
2.3
95.5
28%
38%
5 year
Big Lake CDP, Skagit
1,806
746
6%
24%
70%
0.43
7.7
80.5
35%
43%
5 year
Bow CCD, Skagit
6,009
2,412
4%
21%
75%
0.38
6.7
86.0
26%
34%
5 year
Burlington CCD, Skagit
12,294
4,627
17%
26%
57%
0.38
9.0
72.6
38%
52%
5 year
Burlington city, Skagit
8,419
3,264
18%
28%
54%
0.38
10.6
70.3
42%
53%
5 year
Clear Lake CCD, Skagit
1,678
729
9%
13%
78%
0.36
6.0
81.7
37%
64%
5 year
Clear Lake CDP (Skagit),

Skagit
1,033
462
10%
11%
79%
0.36
1.8
82.6
38%
70%
5 year
Concrete town, Skagit
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
839
307
24%
30%
46%
0.42
15.9
70.8
48%
58%
5 year
Conway CCD, Skagit
3,787
1,416
8%
19%
73%
0.42
2.9
86.2
37%
48%
5 year
East Skagit CCD, Skagit
4,646
1,856
16%
29%
55%
0.37
19.3
67.2
37%
52%
5 year
Hamilton town, Skagit
411
117
16%
39%
44%
0.33
6.9
66.5
28%
63%
5 year
La Conner CCD, Skagit
3,251
1,333
13%
18%
69%
0.36
4.6
82.9
39%
43%
5 year
La Conner town, Skagit
725
392
18%
31%
51%
0.46
4.5
89.0
45%
65%
5 year
Lake Cavanaugh CCD,

Skagit
2,968
1,127
4%
15%
81%
0.38
9.7
83.2
39%
64%
5 year
Lake Cavanaugh CDP,

Skagit
147
107
12%
33%
55%
0.37
32.4
77.0
62%
42%
5 year
Lyman town, Skagit
588
205
15%
25%
60%
0.31
16.2
76.9
37%
41%
5 year
Lyman-Hamilton CCD,
Skagit
2,803
1,048
11%
24%
66%
0.34
12.6
81.8
27%
36%
5 year
Mount Vernon CCD,

Skagit
35,677
12,691
13%
28%
58%
0.43
11.0
71.4
37%
61%
5 year
Mount Vernon city,

Skagit
32,317
11,102
18%
27%
55%
0.45
8.8
68.2
31%
63%
3 year
Sedro-Woolley CCD,
Skagit
13,238
5,132
10%
30%
60%
0.37
14.4
78.1
27%
45%
5 year
Sedro-Woolley city,
Skagit
10,585
4,089
12%
29%
59%
0.36
12.4
74.8
27%
43%
5 year
Swinomish Reservation
CCD, Skagit
3,214
1,293
14%
18%
68%
0.41
9.3
69.6
34%
44%
5 year
Upper Samish River

CCD, Skagit
4,244
1,393
5%
15%
80%
0.34
10.4
83.1
30%
44%
5 year
Carson CDP, Skamania
2,244
897
21%
23%
56%
0.46
11.3
78.4
29%
43%
5 year
Carson-Underwood CCD,
Skamania
4,396
1,817
15%
23%
62%
0.44
11.5
75.3
28%
32%
5 year
North Bonneville CCD,

Skamania
4,805
1,805
12%
14%
74%
0.44
9.7
79.9
26%
38%
5 year
North Bonneville city,

Skamania
1,220
483
17%
22%
61%
0.49
5.5
82.0
35%
47%
5 year
Stevenson CCD,
Skamania
1,742
763
22%
18%
61%
0.45
10.4
82.9
22%
30%
5 year
Stevenson city,
Skamania
1,326
577
29%
17%
54%
0.50
13.4
80.6
23%
34%
5 year
Alderwood Manor CDP,

Snohomish
8,150
3,164
7%
22%
71%
0.36
7.8
87.5
37%
39%
5 year
Arlington CCD,
Snohomish
29,566
10,769
9%
26%
65%
0.37
11.0
82.2
39%
52%
5 year
Arlington city,
Snohomish
18,139
6,716
11%
26%
62%
0.36
10.4
83.4
42%
54%
5 year
Arlington Heights CDP,

Snohomish
2,663
917
9%
21%
70%
0.32
6.2
73.9
54%
18%
5 year
Bothell city, Snohomish
34,747
13,650
9%
22%
68%
0.43
8.4
84.8
28%
54%
3 year
Bothell East CDP,

Snohomish
8,625
2,964
5%
15%
80%
0.38
4.1
87.4
36%
43%
5 year
Bothell West CDP,

Snohomish
17,152
6,245
4%
16%
79%
0.33
8.9
87.6
36%
44%
5 year
Brier city, Snohomish
6,193
2,137
4%
10%
86%
0.34
7.4
87.4
29%
49%
5 year
Bryant CDP, Snohomish
1,934
666
5%
16%
80%
0.28
11.2
86.6
38%
48%
5 year
Bunk Foss CDP,

Snohomish
3,326
1,173
5%
14%
81%
0.40
6.3
92.8
40%
42%
5 year
Canyon Creek CDP,

Snohomish
2,950
1,125
7%
30%
62%
0.35
12.7
80.7
46%
71%
5 year
Cathcart CDP,
Snohomish
2,581
897
8%
8%
84%
0.42
7.5
92.1
40%
0%
5 year
Cavalero CDP,
Snohomish
4,829
1,639
1%
10%
89%
0.29
8.1
90.6
35%
54%
5 year
Chain Lake CDP,

Snohomish
4,218
1,306
5%
14%
82%
0.36
9.9
89.0
38%
48%
5 year
Clearview CDP,
Snohomish
3,501
1,264
7%
9%
85%
0.40
3.9
86.4
36%
15%
5 year
207
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Darrington CCD,
Snohomish
3,317
1,267
15%
32%
53%
0.48
23.7
71.8
42%
47%
5 year
Darrington town,
Snohomish
1,642
590
22%
37%
41%
0.43
24.3
63.6
49%
49%
5 year
Eastmont CDP,
Snohomish
21,675
6,930
4%
13%
83%
0.33
8.4
83.5
31%
51%
5 year
Edmonds CCD,
Snohomish
238,764
92,049
8%
22%
70%
0.40
8.1
84.5
35%
47%
5 year
Edmonds city,
Snohomish
40,381
17,705
7%
25%
68%
0.45
6.5
87.3
34%
47%
3 year
Esperance CDP,
Snohomish
3,597
1,452
2%
28%
70%
0.34
7.0
86.1
38%
32%
5 year
Everett CCD, Snohomish
173,839
67,139
14%
30%
56%
0.42
10.9
76.1
39%
50%
5 year
Everett city, Snohomish
105,355
41,413
19%
29%
52%
0.46
10.3
76.4
36%
53%
1 year
Fobes Hill CDP,

Snohomish
2,399
937
7%
22%
70%
0.41
13.3
86.6
38%
44%
5 year
Gold Bar city,

Snohomish
2,328
823
11%
30%
58%
0.34
16.2
68.8
36%
52%
5 year
Granite Falls CCD,

Snohomish
13,738
5,033
4%
21%
75%
0.34
9.6
85.0
39%
42%
5 year
Granite Falls city,

Snohomish
3,390
1,351
2%
34%
65%
0.31
4.9
85.5
42%
61%
5 year
High Bridge CDP,

Snohomish
3,108
1,010
2%
14%
84%
0.34
7.0
90.0
37%
0%
5 year
Kayak Point CDP,

Snohomish
1,737
549
1%
7%
91%
0.30
9.1
84.9
27%
41%
5 year
459
221
3%
25%
71%
0.40
10.1
51.0
26%
14%
5 year
Lake Cassidy CDP,

Snohomish
3,247
1,102
5%
19%
76%
0.33
6.9
88.5
42%
15%
5 year
Lake Goodwin CDP,

Snohomish
3,637
1,364
4%
25%
71%
0.34
9.1
83.1
39%
46%
5 year
Lake Ketchum CDP,

Snohomish
703
328
3%
35%
62%
0.34
NA
90.9
39%
49%
5 year
Lake Roesiger CDP,

Snohomish
819
301
0%
29%
71%
0.28
10.4
95.1
19%
40%
5 year
Lake Stevens CCD,

Snohomish
23,688
8,237
8%
18%
74%
0.37
8.1
85.2
41%
42%
5 year
Lake Stevens city,

Snohomish
29,248
10,104
8%
22%
70%
0.34
9.2
83.1
37%
46%
3 year
Lake Stickney CDP,

Snohomish
7,421
2,721
13%
33%
54%
0.39
8.0
70.0
51%
48%
5 year
Larch Way CDP,

Snohomish
3,744
1,160
0%
22%
78%
0.34
9.4
86.5
35%
53%
5 year
Lochsloy CDP,
Snohomish
2,723
972
5%
10%
85%
0.33
12.5
86.7
30%
31%
5 year
Lynnwood city,
Snohomish
36,279
13,580
15%
32%
53%
0.44
8.5
76.5
31%
55%
3 year
Machias CDP,
Snohomish
1,094
379
5%
17%
78%
0.36
8.6
94.7
38%
100%
5 year
Maltby CCD, Snohomish
49,656
16,519
5%
11%
84%
0.36
6.5
91.8
34%
36%
5 year
Maltby CDP, Snohomish
10,976
3,642
5%
10%
84%
0.40
7.0
90.4
32%
35%
5 year
Martha Lake CDP,

Snohomish
15,831
5,474
9%
17%
74%
0.39
10.8
80.3
33%
40%
5 year
Marysville CCD,
Snohomish
68,312
24,265
9%
23%
68%
0.37
10.0
82.3
37%
54%
5 year
Marysville city,
Snohomish
62,311
21,755
10%
25%
64%
0.38
9.9
80.3
31%
54%
3 year
May Creek CDP,

Snohomish
796
302
5%
17%
77%
0.26
NA
69.5
31%
0%
5 year
Meadowdale CDP,
Snohomish
2,754
986
13%
19%
69%
0.45
12.1
86.8
41%
50%
5 year
Mill Creek city,

Snohomish
18,439
7,637
5%
16%
79%
0.39
6.6
89.0
33%
40%
5 year
Mill Creek East CDP,

Snohomish
16,348
5,661
6%
9%
85%
0.35
7.5
89.6
36%
42%
5 year
Lake Bosworth CDP,

Snohomish
Unemployment
Rate
Population
208
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Population
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Monroe CCD, Snohomish
30,230
9,252
6%
18%
76%
0.34
7.9
82.7
36%
49%
5 year
Monroe city, Snohomish
17,428
5,091
7%
23%
70%
0.34
7.8
79.1
37%
54%
5 year
Monroe North CDP,

Snohomish
1,822
550
2%
4%
95%
0.24
2.0
90.7
30%
58%
5 year
Mountlake Terrace city,

Snohomish
20,291
8,051
9%
26%
65%
0.36
8.1
77.1
34%
45%
3 year
Mukilteo city, Snohomish
20,647
8,129
4%
18%
78%
0.40
6.5
89.0
31%
41%
3 year
North Lynnwood CDP,

Snohomish
16,983
6,633
9%
27%
65%
0.35
7.8
82.9
42%
53%
5 year
North Sultan CDP,

Snohomish
274
105
10%
23%
67%
0.34
4.7
78.4
19%
0%
5 year
Picnic Point CDP,

Snohomish
9,108
3,231
5%
15%
80%
0.33
9.6
86.4
40%
39%
5 year
Silver Firs CDP,

Snohomish
22,048
7,104
4%
10%
86%
0.31
6.0
91.1
36%
33%
5 year
Sisco Heights CDP,

Snohomish
2,768
1,028
3%
16%
81%
0.32
5.9
89.7
29%
42%
5 year
Snohomish CCD,
Snohomish
35,094
12,767
8%
21%
71%
0.38
9.7
85.1
37%
50%
5 year
Snohomish city,
Snohomish
9,246
3,646
14%
30%
56%
0.42
8.0
81.0
38%
50%
5 year
Stanwood CCD,
Snohomish
34,077
12,461
9%
21%
70%
0.38
8.4
85.4
37%
50%
5 year
Stanwood city,
Snohomish
6,349
2,409
14%
27%
59%
0.41
5.6
89.8
39%
58%
5 year
Startup CDP, Snohomish
573
299
22%
22%
56%
0.34
31.5
64.5
52%
24%
5 year
Sultan CCD, Snohomish
14,174
5,332
12%
23%
65%
0.37
14.0
78.8
36%
45%
5 year
Sultan city, Snohomish
4,665
1,649
12%
23%
65%
0.35
16.2
80.4
44%
46%
5 year
Sunday Lake CDP,

Snohomish
759
260
0%
9%
91%
0.24
7.2
94.7
46%
0%
5 year
Swede Heaven CDP,

Snohomish
776
346
8%
31%
61%
0.37
6.5
83.0
42%
43%
5 year
Three Lakes CDP,

Snohomish
2,772
1,116
7%
11%
81%
0.34
11.2
92.7
31%
22%
5 year
Tulalip Reservation CCD,

Snohomish
10,172
3,632
13%
22%
65%
0.41
13.2
76.0
35%
40%
5 year
Warm Beach CDP,

Snohomish
2,311
897
13%
11%
76%
0.35
6.8
80.7
25%
39%
5 year
Woods Creek CDP,

Snohomish
5,661
1,922
3%
10%
87%
0.31
9.8
85.4
33%
22%
5 year
Woodway city,
Snohomish
1,358
431
3%
9%
88%
0.46
3.1
96.9
37%
74%
5 year
Airway Heights CCD,

Spokane
13,851
4,003
14%
18%
68%
0.40
13.3
77.3
31%
52%
5 year
Airway Heights city,

Spokane
6,234
1,383
26%
28%
46%
0.42
14.6
73.3
38%
61%
5 year
Amber-Cheney South
CCD, Spokane
2,787
1,235
14%
21%
65%
0.38
4.1
79.7
20%
32%
5 year
Cheney city, Spokane
10,828
3,844
46%
15%
38%
0.54
14.0
84.8
19%
64%
5 year
Cheney-Medical Lake
CCD, Spokane
25,053
8,571
26%
19%
55%
0.46
11.3
86.4
22%
58%
5 year
Colbert CCD, Spokane
11,118
3,935
6%
13%
81%
0.39
10.5
88.3
22%
32%
5 year
Country Homes CDP,

Spokane
5,510
1,872
21%
18%
61%
0.44
9.8
83.5
30%
52%
5 year
Deer Park CCD, Spokane
29,185
10,566
8%
15%
76%
0.43
10.3
85.8
27%
38%
5 year
Deer Park city, Spokane
3,685
1,353
23%
38%
39%
0.46
17.2
70.6
40%
63%
5 year
Fairchild AFB CDP,

Spokane
3,092
757
8%
38%
54%
0.35
7.9
98.6
100%
47%
5 year
474
203
17%
27%
57%
0.40
7.0
82.7
34%
67%
5 year
7,782
2,996
13%
16%
71%
0.39
7.1
82.0
32%
59%
5 year
218
128
22%
48%
30%
0.49
NA
100
53%
0%
5 year
Fairfield town, Spokane

Fairwood CDP
(Spokane), Spokane
Four Lakes CDP,
Spokane
209
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Green Bluff CDP,

Spokane
1,035
318
4%
4%
91%
0.32
9.6
90.8
19%
44%
5 year
Liberty Lake CCD,

Spokane
17,006
6,349
9%
18%
73%
0.43
9.2
85.6
27%
37%
5 year
Liberty Lake city,

Spokane
7,774
2,859
7%
16%
77%
0.37
9.9
88.8
22%
41%
5 year
Mead CDP, Spokane
7,446
2,804
9%
21%
70%
0.41
6.4
83.3
20%
32%
5 year
Medical Lake city,

Spokane
4,949
1,516
11%
22%
66%
0.38
10.4
84.3
28%
59%
5 year
Millwood city, Spokane
1,767
753
13%
21%
65%
0.38
6.9
85.5
17%
40%
5 year
Mount Spokane CCD,

Spokane
6,396
2,415
4%
18%
78%
0.36
5.3
84.4
29%
19%
5 year
Otis Orchards-East
Farms CDP, Spokane
6,177
2,275
11%
17%
72%
0.35
7.1
82.4
39%
29%
5 year
Rockford CCD, Spokane
3,007
1,184
9%
22%
68%
0.36
7.7
82.2
26%
22%
5 year
Rockford town, Spokane
479
184
12%
18%
70%
0.32
11.7
69.5
23%
31%
5 year
Spangle city, Spokane
234
103
12%
37%
51%
0.37
13.4
63.4
27%
32%
5 year
Spokane CCD, Spokane
354,625
145,271
16%
23%
61%
0.45
10.1
79.3
27%
52%
5 year
Spokane city, Spokane
210,722
86,332
20%
26%
55%
0.48
8.1
78.7
25%
55%
1 year
Spokane South CCD,

Spokane
7,983
3,083
4%
11%
85%
0.38
6.0
89.4
26%
46%
5 year
Spokane Valley city,

Spokane
91,111
37,107
13%
24%
63%
0.42
6.7
76.7
22%
56%
1 year
Town and Country CDP,

Spokane
5,825
2,071
6%
23%
71%
0.34
5.5
75.9
20%
38%
5 year
Valleyford CCD, Spokane
2,821
960
4%
12%
84%
0.40
5.3
94.7
22%
53%
5 year
Chewelah CCD, Stevens
5,505
2,434
13%
33%
54%
0.40
9.3
80.6
29%
52%
5 year
Chewelah city, Stevens
2,603
1,235
17%
35%
48%
0.42
12.3
74.1
36%
53%
5 year
Clayton CDP, Stevens
523
163
27%
32%
41%
0.26
13.9
83.1
36%
58%
5 year
Colville CCD, Stevens
11,414
4,785
18%
19%
63%
0.43
9.4
80.6
29%
43%
5 year
Colville city, Stevens
4,692
2,180
24%
23%
53%
0.46
4.6
84.6
29%
49%
5 year
Hunters-Gifford CCD,
Stevens
1,601
709
16%
16%
68%
0.39
14.6
70.6
26%
21%
5 year
Kettle Falls CCD,

Stevens
7,771
3,291
14%
24%
62%
0.40
16.0
74.0
29%
47%
5 year
Kettle Falls city, Stevens
1,501
724
13%
31%
55%
0.37
11.4
80.5
31%
43%
5 year
Loon Lake CCD, Stevens
10,045
3,605
9%
13%
78%
0.36
6.9
83.7
31%
21%
5 year
Loon Lake CDP, Stevens
869
350
9%
16%
75%
0.39
19.2
74.0
40%
33%
5 year
Northport town, Stevens
337
176
26%
30%
44%
0.38
20.9
68.3
15%
48%
5 year
Spokane Reservation
CCD, Stevens
1,999
797
30%
22%
48%
0.51
19.9
57.2
12%
39%
5 year
Springdale CCD, Stevens
5,178
2,063
20%
18%
62%
0.41
18.3
72.0
34%
55%
5 year
510
216
18%
29%
53%
0.38
8.9
63.5
45%
45%
5 year
Grand Mound CDP,

Thurston
2,476
920
14%
19%
67%
0.35
13.4
73.2
25%
41%
5 year
Lacey city, Thurston
44,077
16,742
8%
24%
67%
0.34
9.4
84.9
25%
49%
3 year
North Yelm CDP,

Thurston
3,169
1,155
16%
26%
58%
0.41
9.3
78.1
41%
74%
5 year
Olympia CCD, Thurston
163,170
66,545
12%
22%
67%
0.41
9.2
84.6
28%
49%
5 year
Olympia city, Thurston
47,860
20,377
15%
26%
59%
0.45
9.9
80.1
26%
53%
3 year
Olympia East CCD,

Thurston
34,266
12,366
10%
20%
70%
0.37
9.7
82.0
32%
44%
5 year
Olympia West CCD,

Thurston
19,876
7,357
9%
16%
75%
0.39
8.0
85.1
26%
41%
5 year
Rainier city, Thurston
1,948
684
7%
18%
75%
0.29
15.2
82.6
31%
26%
5 year
Rochester CDP, Thurston
1,777
701
13%
19%
67%
0.39
6.9
87.6
46%
82%
5 year
Tanglewilde CDP,
Thurston
5,342
2,069
21%
19%
60%
0.42
8.5
75.8
25%
45%
5 year
Tenino city, Thurston
1,972
752
14%
30%
56%
0.41
16.5
67.9
35%
38%
5 year
Bucoda town, Thurston
Unemployment
Rate
Population
210
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Unemployment
Rate
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Poverty %
ALICE %
14,533
11%
24%
66%
0.39
10.4
79.4
39%
49%
5 year
7,762
10%
24%
67%
0.39
6.9
85.2
29%
45%
5 year
7,086
2,373
18%
22%
59%
0.38
10.2
80.1
43%
49%
5 year
Cathlamet CCD,
Wahkiakum
1,417
639
14%
19%
67%
0.38
11.0
82.1
27%
55%
5 year
Cathlamet town,
Wahkiakum
603
255
17%
23%
60%
0.39
19.9
81.5
20%
37%
5 year
East Cathlamet CDP,

Wahkiakum
420
186
22%
13%
65%
0.44
3.4
96.0
9%
100%
5 year
Grays River CCD,

Wahkiakum
1,260
504
21%
22%
58%
0.38
20.7
71.0
18%
73%
5 year
Grays River CDP,

Wahkiakum
567
182
29%
25%
47%
0.44
14.4
79.2
19%
79%
5 year
Puget Island CCD,

Wahkiakum
903
352
24%
16%
60%
0.47
2.3
86.4
13%
73%
5 year
Puget Island CDP,

Wahkiakum
903
352
24%
16%
60%
0.47
2.3
86.4
13%
73%
5 year
Rosburg CDP,
Wahkiakum
428
178
10%
22%
67%
0.32
29.1
70.9
9%
48%
5 year
Skamokawa CCD,
Wahkiakum
426
220
28%
13%
59%
0.47
18.6
60.3
24%
74%
5 year
Skamokawa Valley CDP,

Wahkiakum
242
142
36%
20%
44%
0.54
NA
74.5
29%
42%
5 year
Burbank CCD, Walla

Walla
3,536
1,255
7%
20%
73%
0.35
6.2
86.0
16%
40%
5 year
Burbank CDP, Walla

Walla
3,267
1,140
7%
19%
74%
0.36
6.7
86.2
14%
39%
5 year
College Place city, Walla

Walla
8,828
3,479
15%
36%
48%
0.41
5.5
81.8
24%
47%
5 year
Dixie CDP, Walla Walla
261
101
22%
26%
52%
0.41
NA
82.2
14%
39%
5 year
Eureka Flat CCD, Walla

Walla
1,715
476
18%
36%
46%
0.38
4.7
44.3
14%
24%
5 year
Garrett CDP, Walla Walla
1,429
548
11%
34%
55%
0.40
5.7
85.1
25%
47%
5 year
Prescott city, Walla Walla
308
131
18%
29%
53%
0.44
11.2
76.2
18%
76%
5 year
Touchet CCD, Walla

Walla
1,951
693
8%
16%
75%
0.44
3.5
86.3
26%
39%
5 year
Touchet CDP, Walla

Walla
409
125
10%
39%
51%
0.37
1.3
72.5
26%
37%
5 year
Waitsburg CCD, Walla

Walla
2,645
1,085
13%
18%
69%
0.41
2.9
79.3
23%
33%
5 year
Waitsburg city, Walla

Walla
1,101
448
20%
20%
60%
0.44
4.4
73.6
26%
52%
5 year
Walla Walla city, Walla

Walla
31,884
10,916
23%
28%
49%
0.47
10.1
79.1
28%
55%
3 year
Walla Walla East CDP,

Walla Walla
1,624
611
9%
18%
73%
0.41
NA
95.8
22%
13%
5 year
Walla Walla-College
Place CCD, Walla Walla
49,245
18,168
17%
30%
53%
0.47
7.8
79.7
24%
51%
5 year
Bellingham CCD,
Whatcom
111,248
45,133
19%
25%
56%
0.46
10.0
82.4
31%
55%
5 year
Bellingham city,
Whatcom
82,635
34,018
25%
24%
51%
0.47
6.9
83.3
25%
58%
1 year
Birch Bay CDP, Whatcom
8,054
3,541
12%
29%
59%
0.41
8.8
86.7
32%
52%
5 year
Blaine CCD, Whatcom
20,033
8,138
12%
25%
63%
0.43
7.5
85.4
30%
54%
5 year
Blaine city, Whatcom
4,779
2,130
13%
25%
62%
0.48
7.2
83.8
22%
65%
5 year
Custer CDP, Whatcom
861
247
0%
40%
60%
0.23
3.0
72.6
30%
100%
5 year
Deming CDP, Whatcom
346
103
22%
37%
41%
0.29
12.6
100
49%
0%
5 year
9,121
3,190
16%
30%
54%
0.40
11.4
71.7
36%
47%
5 year
Population
Households
Thurston South CCD,

Thurston
38,768
Tumwater city, Thurston
17,813
Yelm city, Thurston
East Whatcom CCD,

Whatcom
Everson city, Whatcom
2,518
875
16%
30%
55%
0.43
11.5
72.9
38%
35%
5 year
Ferndale CCD, Whatcom
30,376
11,102
11%
22%
67%
0.39
8.9
80.8
34%
40%
5 year
Ferndale city, Whatcom
11,766
4,355
15%
21%
63%
0.40
11.7
81.0
32%
44%
5 year
211
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Geneva CDP, Whatcom
2,578
882
6%
11%
84%
0.34
14.0
92.1
32%
53%
5 year
Lummi Island CCD,

Whatcom
1,098
524
8%
15%
76%
0.41
6.1
78.9
34%
40%
5 year
Lummi Reservation CCD,

Whatcom
4,705
1,635
17%
26%
58%
0.49
13.4
72.2
26%
47%
5 year
Lynden CCD, Whatcom
17,147
6,155
7%
27%
67%
0.38
5.8
82.9
26%
52%
5 year
Lynden city, Whatcom
12,334
4,749
8%
26%
66%
0.39
6.9
82.5
29%
55%
5 year
354
155
0%
58%
42%
0.33
NA
81.1
18%
81%
5 year
Marietta-Alderwood CDP,
Whatcom
4,030
1,625
20%
37%
43%
0.50
7.2
71.4
29%
62%
5 year
Nooksack city, Whatcom
1,326
416
11%
16%
72%
0.30
6.8
81.7
44%
66%
5 year
Peaceful Valley CDP,

Whatcom
4,021
1,432
20%
35%
45%
0.38
13.1
59.6
39%
52%
5 year
Point Roberts CCD,

Whatcom
1,287
652
23%
24%
54%
0.54
0.5
71.0
34%
63%
5 year
Point Roberts CDP,

Whatcom
1,287
652
23%
24%
54%
0.54
0.5
71.0
34%
63%
5 year
Sudden Valley CDP,

Whatcom
6,417
2,645
8%
13%
79%
0.33
10.6
86.0
33%
40%
5 year
Sumas CCD, Whatcom
8,196
2,785
14%
22%
64%
0.53
12.7
74.8
35%
35%
5 year
Sumas city, Whatcom
1,206
422
9%
30%
61%
0.35
12.3
63.9
35%
41%
5 year
Albion town, Whitman
592
252
7%
29%
64%
0.36
2.9
84.0
12%
35%
5 year
Colfax city, Whitman
2,840
1,243
13%
26%
61%
0.38
NA
89.4
23%
38%
5 year
Colfax-Palouse CCD,
Whitman
5,040
2,131
11%
21%
68%
0.40
1.3
92.0
21%
33%
5 year
Colton town, Whitman
331
145
0%
17%
83%
0.30
2.3
98.0
14%
NA
5 year
Endicott town, Whitman
231
117
6%
42%
52%
0.33
7.2
84.4
26%
31%
5 year
Garfield town, Whitman
529
239
16%
22%
62%
0.38
8.9
86.5
20%
55%
5 year
Garfield-Oakesdale CCD,
Whitman
2,062
879
12%
23%
65%
0.42
7.1
81.9
20%
27%
5 year
LaCrosse CCD, Whitman
825
380
15%
25%
59%
0.43
3.7
84.2
20%
6%
5 year
LaCrosse town, Whitman
278
147
16%
39%
45%
0.43
5.3
74.2
17%
13%
5 year
Oakesdale town,
Whitman
466
170
8%
18%
74%
0.39
7.2
69.2
31%
23%
5 year
Maple Falls CDP,

Whatcom
Unemployment
Rate
Population
Palouse city, Whitman
1,072
408
15%
15%
70%
0.40
4.7
90.0
19%
42%
5 year
Pullman CCD, Whitman
32,638
11,041
40%
18%
42%
0.58
6.9
88.7
12%
65%
5 year
Pullman city, Whitman
30,868
10,560
43%
20%
37%
0.59
10.3
88.1
14%
68%
3 year
Rock Lake CCD,

Whitman
1,706
824
10%
28%
62%
0.43
4.6
86.9
17%
32%
5 year
Rosalia CCD, Whitman
1,106
491
9%
33%
58%
0.39
7.2
86.9
16%
44%
5 year
Rosalia town, Whitman
600
249
13%
33%
54%
0.37
8.4
78.7
24%
42%
5 year
St. John town, Whitman
529
301
12%
39%
50%
0.42
9.4
86.1
13%
59%
5 year
Tekoa CCD, Whitman
917
370
18%
27%
55%
0.41
10.3
77.7
34%
40%
5 year
Tekoa city, Whitman
698
270
21%
27%
51%
0.40
15.3
73.5
41%
48%
5 year
1,218
508
4%
18%
78%
0.42
2.3
90.9
12%
19%
5 year
Uniontown CCD,
Whitman
Uniontown town,
Whitman
414
168
8%
18%
74%
0.28
NA
88.4
8%
24%
5 year
Ahtanum CDP, Yakima
3,720
1,345
10%
32%
58%
0.34
7.6
70.8
18%
23%
5 year
Buena CDP, Yakima
1,198
266
70%
17%
13%
0.41
22.5
45.2
28%
100%
5 year
528
101
68%
15%
17%
0.19
9.8
6.1
0%
19%
5 year
Cowiche CDP, Yakima

Eschbach CDP, Yakima
212
Gini
Coefficient
Above ALICE
Theshold %
250
114
14%
41%
45%
0.32
NA
79.2
51%
100%
5 year
Gleed CDP, Yakima
2,901
1,046
11%
16%
73%
0.34
6.5
76.2
30%
46%
5 year
Grandview city, Yakima
10,893
2,996
18%
35%
48%
0.38
15.8
52.2
32%
58%
5 year
Granger city, Yakima
3,277
738
31%
28%
41%
0.37
15.4
46.1
31%
38%
5 year
Harrah town, Yakima
566
177
20%
20%
60%
0.35
6.0
64.2
24%
49%
5 year
Housing
Burden: %
Owner over
30%
Housing
Burden: %
Renter over
30%
Source,
American
Community
Survey
estimate
Households
Poverty %
ALICE %
Mabton CCD, Yakima
3,126
795
20%
29%
52%
0.36
11.5
43.1
27%
35%
5 year
Mabton city, Yakima
2,210
510
25%
29%
45%
0.37
14.2
38.5
30%
40%
5 year
Moxee city, Yakima
3,484
996
8%
20%
72%
0.31
3.0
72.9
32%
39%
5 year
915
378
12%
44%
44%
0.38
11.4
57.8
31%
76%
5 year
Northeast Yakima CCD,

Yakima
9,119
2,922
9%
24%
67%
0.35
6.0
73.3
34%
35%
5 year
Northwest Yakima CCD,

Yakima
7,829
2,998
14%
24%
62%
0.42
9.3
75.9
29%
47%
5 year
Selah city, Yakima
7,243
2,610
16%
28%
56%
0.40
14.4
70.6
23%
44%
5 year
South Yakima CCD,

Yakima
3,738
1,089
17%
20%
63%
0.39
14.9
56.2
17%
13%
5 year
Summitview CDP,
Yakima
1,461
436
0%
29%
71%
0.40
15.0
84.5
6%
86%
5 year
Sunnyside CCD, Yakima
52,951
14,627
22%
27%
51%
0.42
12.9
56.2
27%
53%
5 year
Sunnyside city, Yakima
15,940
4,369
25%
34%
40%
0.46
13.0
46.9
31%
56%
5 year
Tampico CDP, Yakima
238
112
54%
13%
33%
0.56
35.0
57.1
40%
29%
5 year
Terrace Heights CDP,

Yakima
6,338
2,681
2%
28%
70%
0.39
10.0
85.9
28%
49%
5 year
Tieton city, Yakima
1,108
340
23%
37%
41%
0.37
18.2
51.8
38%
42%
5 year
Toppenish city, Yakima
8,970
2,286
34%
33%
33%
0.43
12.2
42.6
44%
58%
5 year
Toppenish-Wapato CCD,
Yakima
27,448
7,199
30%
26%
44%
0.43
11.2
52.0
31%
47%
5 year
Union Gap city, Yakima
6,021
1,880
24%
27%
49%
0.36
7.0
47.3
27%
40%
5 year
Wapato city, Yakima
5,031
1,259
35%
32%
33%
0.36
17.6
41.9
40%
46%
5 year
734
181
28%
24%
48%
0.32
20.7
34.3
35%
8%
5 year
Yakima CCD, Yakima
140,443
50,049
17%
27%
55%
0.44
10.7
66.8
25%
52%
5 year
Yakima city, Yakima
93,260
32,560
24%
28%
48%
0.44
10.5
57.7
30%
56%
1 year
Zillah city, Yakima
3,046
1,050
9%
23%
68%
0.35
8.7
78.9
15%
45%
5 year
Naches town, Yakima
White Swan CDP, Yakima
213
Health
Insurance
Coverage
%
Population
Gini
Coefficient
Unemployment
Rate
Above ALICE
Theshold %
APPENDIX I HOUSEHOLDS BY
INCOME
This table presents the total number of households in each county in the Pacific Northwest in 2007, 2010, and
2013, as well as the percent of households in poverty and ALICE for each year. For the smallest counties, those
with populations below 20,000, data is not available for 2007 because there were no American Community
Survey 5-year estimates that year.
ALICE Households, Idaho, 2007-2013

County
Households
2013
Poverty % 2013
ALICE % 2013
Households
2010
Poverty % 2010
ALICE % 2010
Households 2007
Poverty %
2007
ALICE %
2007
Ada
155,434
14%
18%
149,351
12%
19%
142,676
8%
19%
1,707
19%
20%
1,700
14%
22%
NA
NA
NA
Bannock
30,265
17%
21%
29,530
16%
27%
29,298
13%
18%
Bear Lake
2,442
14%
20%
2,538
14%
17%
NA
NA
NA
Benewah
3,888
14%
26%
3,840
15%
28%
NA
NA
NA
Bingham
27%
Adams
15,005
13%
23%
14,303
17%
22%
14,025
14%
Blaine
9,205
8%
27%
9,245
9%
18%
NA
NA
NA
Boise
2,994
18%
21%
3,024
16%
11%
NA
NA
NA
Bonner
17,160
17%
21%
18,408
14%
20%
15,318
13%
24%
Bonneville
36,806
10%
24%
35,003
13%
23%
34,890
10%
20%
Boundary
4,144
20%
23%
4,186
18%
28%
NA
NA
NA
Butte
1,022
15%
27%
1,149
13%
22%
NA
NA
NA
Camas
464
14%
28%
427
15%
23%
NA
NA
NA
Canyon
65,923
18%
23%
61,699
17%
25%
62,898
15%
20%
Caribou
2,644
8%
28%
2,726
9%
19%
NA
NA
NA
Cassia
7,542
14%
28%
7,744
18%
28%
7,321
16%
27%
Clark
Clearwater
214
304
9%
44%
334
7%
32%
NA
NA
NA
3,545
13%
27%
3,656
11%
24%
NA
NA
NA
Custer
1,870
17%
22%
1,918
15%
21%
NA
NA
NA
Elmore
9,737
15%
21%
9,496
10%
27%
9,978
0%
35%
Franklin
4,150
11%
32%
4,080
11%
26%
NA
NA
NA
Fremont
4,549
13%
26%
4,504
10%
30%
NA
NA
NA
Gem
6,323
16%
22%
6,512
15%
21%
NA
NA
NA
Gooding
5,552
18%
27%
5,512
15%
29%
NA
NA
NA
Idaho
6,534
16%
24%
6,596
17%
28%
NA
NA
NA
Jefferson
8,038
11%
24%
8,129
10%
21%
7,046
0%
37%
Jerome
7,808
14%
30%
7,356
14%
32%
6,553
0%
46%
Kootenai
55,836
11%
22%
55,456
14%
25%
53,505
12%
22%
20%
Latah
14,960
22%
21%
15,069
24%
17%
13,625
19%
Lemhi
3,832
21%
25%
3,545
17%
24%
NA
NA
NA
Lewis
1,660
17%
31%
1,644
13%
25%
NA
NA
NA
Lincoln
1,617
14%
34%
1,814
12%
26%
NA
NA
NA
25%
Madison
10,569
32%
28%
10,018
31%
26%
9,582
27%
Minidoka
7,033
13%
28%
6,722
12%
25%
NA
NA
NA
Nez Perce
15,910
11%
22%
16,048
13%
25%
15,844
14%
20%
Oneida
1,579
15%
32%
1,556
14%
22%
NA
NA
NA
Owyhee
3,911
23%
39%
4,016
19%
34%
NA
NA
NA
36%
Payette
7,968
20%
20%
8,419
18%
24%
7,966
0%
Power
2,568
12%
36%
2,598
13%
27%
NA
NA
NA
Shoshone
5,714
17%
22%
5,776
18%
21%
NA
NA
NA
Teton
3,583
10%
35%
3,786
7%
16%
NA
NA
NA
Households
2013
County
Poverty % 2013
ALICE % 2013
Households
2010
Poverty % 2010
ALICE % 2010
Households 2007
Poverty %
2007
ALICE %
2007
21%
Twin Falls
28,811
15%
23%
29,602
15%
17%
28,738
12%
Valley
3,519
10%
24%
4,388
12%
12%
NA
NA
NA
Washington
3,938
17%
29%
4,010
15%
29%
NA
NA
NA
Households
2010
Poverty % 2010
ALICE % 2010
Households 2007
Poverty %
2007
ALICE %
2007
County
Baker
Benton
Households
2013
Poverty % 2013
ALICE % 2013
7,120
17%
25%
6,902
19%
24%
NA
NA
NA
33,609
23%
18%
32,888
23%
20%
32,946
19%
20%
17%
150,382
9%
21%
143,814
9%
22%
141,347
9%
Clatsop
15,549
14%
28%
16,220
13%
17%
16,076
14%
23%
Columbia
18,781
13%
26%
19,184
12%
22%
18,182
7%
23%
Coos
25,814
18%
29%
26,858
17%
24%
27,364
16%
24%
Crook
8,974
17%
28%
8,613
11%
25%
8,927
0%
33%
Clackamas
Curry
10,413
15%
26%
10,473
16%
25%
10,364
15%
27%
Deschutes
65,065
17%
25%
64,120
13%
29%
62,622
8%
21%
Douglas
43,389
18%
25%
44,191
17%
23%
41,824
14%
25%
883
11%
18%
851
11%
24%
NA
NA
NA
3,319
16%
28%
3,349
15%
25%
NA
NA
NA
Gilliam
Grant
Harney
3,113
18%
22%
3,350
19%
17%
NA
NA
NA
Hood River
8,174
8%
32%
8,097
9%
17%
7,706
0%
44%
Jackson
82,983
17%
28%
81,508
14%
32%
81,616
14%
25%
Jefferson
7,723
15%
24%
7,897
14%
30%
7,368
0%
46%
Josephine
34,517
17%
30%
34,099
17%
29%
33,947
17%
27%
Klamath
25,746
17%
31%
27,582
17%
22%
26,921
15%
19%
Lake
3,566
19%
27%
3,462
16%
22%
NA
NA
NA
Lane
144,166
20%
23%
144,923
18%
25%
138,374
15%
23%
Lincoln
20,458
15%
27%
20,646
17%
27%
19,623
17%
28%
Linn
43,911
17%
27%
45,489
16%
27%
44,444
14%
24%
Malheur
10,322
24%
32%
9,910
21%
32%
10,413
15%
32%
Marion
114,077
16%
27%
114,347
16%
26%
112,218
13%
30%
Morrow
3,741
15%
26%
3,876
13%
26%
NA
NA
NA
Multnomah
309,552
16%
15%
302,060
17%
14%
291,576
14%
21%
Polk
27%
28,097
17%
22%
28,767
14%
22%
26,459
12%
Sherman
827
20%
15%
813
16%
24%
NA
NA
NA
Tillamook
9,576
15%
33%
11,713
18%
21%
10,792
15%
27%
Umatilla
26,943
16%
21%
27,295
14%
28%
26,869
17%
29%
Union
10,179
21%
20%
10,353
16%
23%
9,782
14%
20%
Wallowa
2,996
16%
23%
3,015
15%
20%
NA
NA
NA
Wasco
9,485
13%
35%
9,990
14%
24%
9,002
13%
27%
21%
Washington
203,665
10%
24%
199,027
8%
20%
194,302
8%
Wheeler
625
16%
17%
631
14%
38%
NA
NA
NA
Yamhill
35,454
12%
28%
34,070
12%
27%
33,258
14%
26%
Households 2007
Poverty %
2007
ALICE %
2007
ALICE Households, Washington, 2007-2013

County
Households
2013
Poverty % 2013
ALICE % 2013
Households
2010
Poverty % 2010
ALICE % 2010
Adams
5,738
19%
28%
5,599
19%
25%
NA
NA
NA
Asotin
9,270
14%
23%
8,920
13%
23%
8,561
14%
25%
Benton
68,334
13%
17%
64,115
11%
18%
56,391
11%
22%
215
ALICE Households, Oregon, 2007-2013
County
ALICE % 2013
Households
2010
Poverty % 2010
ALICE % 2010
Households 2007
Poverty %
2007
ALICE %
2007
Chelan
27,665
13%
23%
26,564
12%
25%
26,769
11%
28%
30,606
17%
22%
30,430
14%
23%
30,700
11%
26%
Clark
24%
158,778
11%
22%
155,533
10%
20%
150,640
9%
Columbia
1,651
17%
21%
1,732
16%
19%
NA
NA
NA
Cowlitz
38,483
14%
19%
40,475
21%
19%
38,117
14%
23%
22%
Douglas
14,138
11%
23%
13,813
12%
22%
13,177
15%
Ferry
2,951
19%
30%
2,706
18%
31%
NA
NA
NA
Franklin
24,434
19%
23%
22,511
16%
27%
20,050
19%
29%
Garfield
970
8%
23%
903
13%
25%
NA
NA
NA
29,888
17%
26%
30,228
18%
23%
28,216
16%
28%
Grays Harbor
26,815
19%
24%
28,376
14%
22%
27,388
11%
23%
Island
32,990
12%
21%
32,685
9%
22%
31,359
9%
20%
23%
Jefferson
13,285
12%
28%
14,691
15%
15%
12,778
12%
King
819,434
11%
13%
787,809
11%
17%
762,697
9%
21%
Kitsap
97,854
10%
13%
99,150
11%
20%
90,010
9%
20%
Kittitas
16,409
24%
19%
16,628
22%
19%
15,669
27%
15%
Klickitat
7,829
14%
26%
8,470
17%
30%
8,193
18%
24%
22%
Lewis
29,040
18%
26%
28,142
14%
30%
29,130
13%
Lincoln
4,457
13%
22%
4,649
11%
19%
NA
NA
NA
Mason
23,395
15%
23%
22,444
16%
22%
19,909
14%
23%
Okanogan
16,231
20%
21%
15,348
18%
23%
15,689
20%
27%
Pacific
9,165
16%
27%
9,440
19%
15%
9,752
14%
23%
Pend Oreille
Pierce
5,484
21%
20%
5,511
19%
21%
NA
NA
NA
302,287
12%
22%
299,876
10%
26%
289,476
11%
21%
San Juan
7,753
11%
22%
7,986
11%
17%
NA
NA
NA
Skagit
45,234
14%
23%
44,856
9%
27%
44,037
10%
24%
Skamania
Poverty % 2013
Clallam
Grant
216
Households
2013
4,452
15%
19%
4,514
11%
22%
NA
NA
NA
Snohomish
270,616
11%
22%
266,080
9%
27%
257,492
7%
22%
Spokane
186,456
16%
21%
187,672
14%
20%
180,645
13%
22%
Stevens
17,586
16%
18%
17,518
15%
23%
15,459
16%
24%
19%
Thurston
99,815
12%
23%
99,869
10%
21%
94,855
9%
Wahkiakum
1,715
20%
18%
1,763
11%
24%
NA
NA
NA
Walla Walla
21,413
17%
28%
21,473
15%
25%
20,817
18%
21%
Whatcom
78,330
18%
24%
80,288
14%
25%
75,759
15%
26%
Whitman
17,340
31%
21%
15,565
28%
21%
15,772
28%
27%
Yakima
79,742
19%
28%
79,875
19%
29%
77,682
18%
26%
APPENDIX J ALICE COUNTY PAGES

The following section presents a snapshot of ALICE in each of the Pacific Northwests 119 counties, including
the number and percent of households by income, Economic Viability Dashboard scores, Household Survival
Budget, key economic indicators, and data for each municipality in the county (where available).
Because state averages often smooth over local variation, these county pages are crucial to understanding the
unique combination of demographic and economic circumstances in each county in the Pacific Northwest.
217
Building on American Community Survey data, for counties with populations over 65,000, the data are 1-year
estimates; for populations between 20,000 and 65,000, data are 3-year estimates; and for populations below
20,000, data are 5-year estimates.
ALICE IN ADA COUNTY
Ada County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Boise City
87,769
38%
Eagle City
7,289
19%
Garden City
4,872
50%
738
17%
Kuna City
5,096
31%
Meridian City
27,420
24%
Star City
1,841
19%
Town
Hidden Spring CDP
Population: 416,464 | Number of Households: 155,434

Median Household Income: $52,542 (state average: $46,783)
Unemployment Rate: 5.8% (state average: 7.2%)
Gini Coefficient (zero = equality; one = inequality): 0.46 (state average: 0.44)

ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited,
Income Constrained, Employed, are
households that earn more than the U.S.
poverty level, but less than the basic
cost of living for the county. Combined,
the number of poverty and ALICE
households equals the total population
struggling to afford basic needs.
16001
14%
18%
68%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
hat are the economic conditions?

W
The Economic Viability Dashboard evaluates community conditions

for ALICE in three core areas. Each is an index with a scale of 1 (worst)
to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (57)
Job
Opportunities
good (56)
Community
Resources
fair (58)

This bare-minimum budget does not allow for any savings, leaving a
household vulnerable to unexpected expenses. Affording only a very
modest living in each community, this budget is still significantly more than the
U.S. poverty level of $11,490 for a single adult and $23,550 for a family of four.
Household Survival Budget, Ada County
NOTE: Municipal-level data on this page

is for Census Places. Totals will not match
county-level data; municipal-level data often
relies on 3- and 5-year averages and is not
available for the smallest towns that do not
report income.
218
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$431
$724
Child Care
$939
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$122
$364
Taxes
$125
$220
Monthly Total
$1,338
$4,000
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,056
$48,000
Hourly Wage
$8.03
$24.00
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and state Treasury, and ChildCare Aware,
2013; American Community Survey, 1 year estimate.
ALICE IN ADAMS COUNTY
Adams County, 2013

Unemployment Rate: 10% (state average: 7.2%)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Council City
345
46%
New Meadows City
224
52%
Town

16003
19%
20%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
What are the economic conditions?

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (58)
Job
Opportunities
poor (45)
Community
Resources
poor (42)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$460
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$125
$333
Taxes
$131
$144
Monthly Total
$1,376
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,512
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.26
$21.98

report income.
219
Household Survival Budget, Adams County
ALICE IN BANNOCK COUNTY
Bannock County, 2013

Town
Arimo City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
112
32%
4,808
33%
Downey City
191
35%
Fort Hall CDP
1,043
44%
Inkom City
308
29%
Lava Hot Springs City
181
52%
Mccammon City
203
43%
20,601
41%
374
17%
Chubbuck City
Pocatello City
Tyhee CDP


16005
17%
21%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (57)
Job
Opportunities
fair (51)
Community
Resources
good (62)

Household Survival Budget, Bannock County

report income.
220
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$372
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$114
$333
Taxes
$112
$144
Monthly Total
$1,258
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,096
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$7.55
$21.98
ALICE IN BEAR LAKE COUNTY
Bear Lake County, 2013

Town
Georgetown City
Montpelier City
Paris City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
191
29%
1,073
47%
228
28%

16007
14%
20%
66%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (69)
Job
Opportunities
fair (50)
Community
Resources
good (59)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$464
$632
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$126
$334
Taxes
$132
$146
Monthly Total
$1,382
$3,672
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,584
$44,064
Hourly Wage
$8.29
$22.03

report income.
221
Household Survival Budget, Bear Lake County
ALICE IN BENEWAH COUNTY
Benewah County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Plummer City
372
47%
St. Maries City
995
47%
Town


16009
14%
26%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (66)
Job
Opportunities
good (61)
Community
Resources
poor (46)

Household Survival Budget, Benewah County

report income.
222
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$501
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$130
$333
Taxes
$139
$144
Monthly Total
$1,430
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,160
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.58
$21.98
ALICE IN BINGHAM COUNTY
Bingham County, 2013


23%
64%
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Aberdeen City
734
52%
Basalt City
126
54%
4,193
49%
Firth City
189
43%
Groveland CDP
200
18%
Moreland CDP
400
39%
Riverside CDP
243
30%
1,328
39%
Blackfoot City
Shelley City
16011
13%
Total HH
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (69)
Job
Opportunities
good (54)
Community
Resources
poor (52)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$501
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$130
$333
Taxes
$139
$144
Monthly Total
$1,430
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,160
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.58
$21.98

report income.
223
Household Survival Budget, Bingham County
ALICE IN BLAINE COUNTY
Blaine County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bellevue City
938
53%
Carey City
201
32%
Hailey City
3,318
29%
Ketchum City
1,585
42%
564
37%
Town
Sun Valley City


16013
8%
27%
65%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (35)
Job
Opportunities
good (56)
Community
Resources
fair (55)

Household Survival Budget, Blaine County

report income.
224
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$694
$921
Child Care
$1,801
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$154
$509
Taxes
$186
$614
Monthly Total
$1,694
$5,598
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,328
$67,176
Hourly Wage
$10.16
$33.59
ALICE IN BOISE COUNTY
Boise County, 2013

Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Horseshoe Bend City
341
50%
Idaho City
211
60%
Robie Creek CDP
518
8%
Town

16015
18%
21%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (58)
Job
Opportunities
poor (36)
Community
Resources
poor (50)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$431
$724
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$122
$346
Taxes
$125
$172
Monthly Total
$1,338
$3,802
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,056
$45,624
Hourly Wage
$8.03
$22.81

report income.
225
Household Survival Budget, Boise County
ALICE IN BONNER COUNTY
Bonner County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Clark Fork City
314
67%
Dover City
245
13%
East Hope City
121
33%
Kootenai City
351
44%
Ponderay City
555
57%
Priest River City
729
50%
3,294
43%
Town
Sandpoint City


16017
17%
21%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (52)
Job
Opportunities
poor (46)
Community
Resources
fair (53)

Household Survival Budget, Bonner County

report income.
226
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$467
$669
Child Care
$939
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$126
$356
Taxes
$132
$195
Monthly Total
$1,385
$3,912
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,620
$46,944
Hourly Wage
$8.31
$23.47
ALICE IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY
Bonneville County, 2013


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Ammon City
4,382
29%
Idaho Falls City
21,016
40%
Iona City
520
29%
Lincoln CDP
852
23%
Ucon City
393
30%
Town
16019
10%
24%
66%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (61)
Job
Opportunities
good (56)
Community
Resources
poor (50)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$420
$671
Child Care
$939
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$120
$356
Taxes
$122
$196
Monthly Total
$1,322
$3,915
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,864
$46,980
Hourly Wage
$7.93
$23.49

report income.
227
Household Survival Budget, Bonneville County
ALICE IN BOUNDARY COUNTY
Boundary County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bonners Ferry City
1,266
45%
Moyie Springs City
291
46%
Town


16021
20%
57%
23%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (52)
Job
Opportunities
fair (48)
Community
Resources
poor (48)

Household Survival Budget, Boundary County

report income.
228
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$460
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$125
$333
Taxes
$131
$144
Monthly Total
$1,376
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,512
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.26
$21.98
ALICE IN BUTTE COUNTY
Butte County, 2013

Town
Arco City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
427
51%

16023
15%
27%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (58)
Job
Opportunities
good (63)
Community
Resources
fair (53)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$476
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$127
$333
Taxes
$134
$144
Monthly Total
$1,397
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,764
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.38
$21.98

report income.
229
Household Survival Budget, Butte County
ALICE IN CAMAS COUNTY
Camas County, 2013

Town
Fairfield City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
182
43%
Population: 1,267 | Number of Households: 464


16025
14%
28%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (42)
Job
Opportunities
fair (53)
Community
Resources
poor (46)

Household Survival Budget, Camas County

report income.
230
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$496
$633
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$129
$334
Taxes
$138
$146
Monthly Total
$1,423
$3,673
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,076
$44,076
Hourly Wage
$8.54
$22.04
ALICE IN CANYON COUNTY
Canyon County, 2013


16027
18%
23%
59%
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Caldwell City
16,026
46%
Greenleaf City
298
35%
Melba City
182
49%
Middleton City
1,940
43%
Nampa City
28,560
44%
Notus City
180
48%
Parma City
676
62%
Wilder City
472
69%
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (54)
Job
Opportunities
fair (52)
Community
Resources
poor (46)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$431
$724
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$122
$346
Taxes
$125
$172
Monthly Total
$1,338
$3,802
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,056
$45,624
Hourly Wage
$8.03
$22.81

report income.
231
Household Survival Budget, Canyon County
ALICE IN CARIBOU COUNTY
Caribou County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bancroft City
136
43%
Grace City
360
41%
1,251
41%
Town
Soda Springs City


16029
8%
28%
64%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (73)
Job
Opportunities
good (68)
Community
Resources
good (64)

Household Survival Budget, Caribou County

report income.
232
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$490
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$129
$333
Taxes
$137
$144
Monthly Total
$1,416
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,992
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.50
$21.98
ALICE IN CASSIA COUNTY
Cassia County, 2013

Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Albion City
110
35%
Burley City
3,499
51%
Declo City
150
31%
Oakley City
266
44%
Town

16031
14%
28%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (63)
Job
Opportunities
good (55)
Community
Resources
poor (49)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$372
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$114
$333
Taxes
$112
$144
Monthly Total
$1,258
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,096
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$7.55
$21.98

report income.
233
Household Survival Budget, Cassia County
ALICE IN CLARK COUNTY
Clark County, 2013

Town
Dubois City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
225
43%
Population: 751 | Number of Households: 304


16033
9%
47%
44%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (23)
Job
Opportunities
poor (31)
Community
Resources
good (59)

Household Survival Budget, Clark County

report income.
234
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$490
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$129
$333
Taxes
$137
$144
Monthly Total
$1,416
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,992
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.50
$21.98
ALICE IN CLEARWATER COUNTY
Clearwater County, 2013

Town
Orofino City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,092
41%
Pierce City
300
43%
Weippe City
166
43%

16035
13%
27%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (65)
Job
Opportunities
fair (51)
Community
Resources
poor (50)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$501
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$130
$333
Taxes
$139
$144
Monthly Total
$1,430
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,160
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.58
$21.98

report income.
235
Household Survival Budget, Clearwater County
ALICE IN CUSTER COUNTY
Custer County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Challis City
560
53%
Mackay City
222
49%
Town


16037
17%
22%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (71)
Job
Opportunities
poor (46)
Community
Resources
poor (45)

Household Survival Budget, Custer County

report income.
236
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$493
$671
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$129
$339
Taxes
$138
$157
Monthly Total
$1,420
$3,727
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,040
$44,724
Hourly Wage
$8.52
$22.36
ALICE IN ELMORE COUNTY
Elmore County, 2013

Town
Glenns Ferry City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
570
52%
Mountain Home AFB

CDP
764
53%
Mountain Home City
5,372
33%

16039
15%
21%
64%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (52)
Job
Opportunities
good (56)
Community
Resources
fair (56)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$470
$640
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$126
$335
Taxes
$133
$148
Monthly Total
$1,389
$3,683
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,668
$44,196
Hourly Wage
$8.33
$22.10

report income.
237
Household Survival Budget, Elmore County
ALICE IN FRANKLIN COUNTY
Franklin County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Dayton City
128
41%
Franklin City
248
41%
Preston City
1,729
45%
Weston City
174
43%
Town


16041
11%
32%
57%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (55)
Job
Opportunities
good (55)
Community
Resources
poor (49)

Household Survival Budget, Franklin County

report income.
238
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$473
$631
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$127
$334
Taxes
$134
$145
Monthly Total
$1,394
$3,670
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,728
$44,040
Hourly Wage
$8.36
$22.02
ALICE IN FREMONT COUNTY
Fremont County, 2013

% ALICE
&
Poverty
Ashton City
424
49%
Island Park City
111
34%
Newdale City
122
48%
Parker City
129
45%
1,150
49%
289
57%
St. Anthony City

Total HH
Town
Teton City
16043
13%
26%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (62)
Job
Opportunities
good (55)
Community
Resources
poor (49)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$514
$700
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$132
$343
Taxes
$142
$165
Monthly Total
$1,448
$3,768
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,376
$45,216
Hourly Wage
$8.69
$22.61

report income.
239
Household Survival Budget, Fremont County
ALICE IN GEM COUNTY
Gem County, 2013

Town
Emmett City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
2,496
51%


16045
16%
22%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (60)
Job
Opportunities
poor (38)
Community
Resources
fair (54)

Household Survival Budget, Gem County

report income.
240
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$375
$631
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$115
$334
Taxes
$113
$145
Monthly Total
$1,263
$3,670
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,156
$44,040
Hourly Wage
$7.58
$22.02
ALICE IN GOODING COUNTY
Gooding County, 2013

Town
Bliss City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
122
69%
1,368
56%
Hagerman City
425
57%
Wendell City
964
44%
Gooding City

16047
18%
55%
27%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (56)
Job
Opportunities
good (59)
Community
Resources
poor (45)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$485
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$128
$333
Taxes
$136
$144
Monthly Total
$1,409
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,908
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.45
$21.98

report income.
241
Household Survival Budget, Gooding County
ALICE IN IDAHO COUNTY
Idaho County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Cottonwood City
370
37%
Grangeville City
1,339
40%
Kooskia City
323
46%
Riggins City
213
54%
Stites City
106
55%
Town


16049
16%
24%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (63)
Job
Opportunities
good (58)
Community
Resources
good (66)

Household Survival Budget, Idaho County

report income.
242
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$475
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$127
$333
Taxes
$134
$144
Monthly Total
$1,396
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,752
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.38
$21.98
ALICE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY
Jefferson County, 2013


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Lewisville City
150
34%
Menan City
235
29%
Mud Lake City
100
55%
Rigby City
1,358
56%
Ririe City
234
57%
Roberts City
142
75%
Town
16051
11%
24%
65%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (54)
Job
Opportunities
good (59)
Community
Resources
good (59)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$420
$671
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$120
$339
Taxes
$122
$157
Monthly Total
$1,322
$3,727
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,864
$44,724
Hourly Wage
$7.93
$22.36

report income.
243
Household Survival Budget, Jefferson County
ALICE IN JEROME COUNTY
Jerome County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Eden City
165
53%
Hazelton City
320
51%
3,702
55%
Town
Jerome City


16053
14%
30%
56%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (58)
Job
Opportunities
good (65)
Community
Resources
fair (55)

Household Survival Budget, Jerome County

report income.
244
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$412
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$119
$333
Taxes
$121
$144
Monthly Total
$1,312
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,744
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$7.87
$21.98
ALICE IN KOOTENAI COUNTY
Kootenai County, 2013


22%
67%
Athol City
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
287
48%
Coeur DAlene City
18,419
43%
Dalton Gardens City
807
29%
Harrison City
116
54%
Hauser City
289
49%
Hayden City
5,138
29%
266
13%
Post Falls City
11,003
30%
Rathdrum City
2,544
42%
Rockford Bay CDP
130
22%
Spirit Lake City
696
52%
Worley City
102
36%
Hayden Lake City
16055
11%
Town

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (60)
Job
Opportunities
fair (51)
Community
Resources
fair (55)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$480
$724
Child Care
$939
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$127
$364
Taxes
$135
$220
Monthly Total
$1,402
$4,000
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,824
$48,000
Hourly Wage
$8.41
$24.00

report income.
245
Household Survival Budget, Kootenai County
ALICE IN LATAH COUNTY
Latah County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bovill City
106
41%
Deary City
231
27%
Genesee City
407
20%
Juliaetta City
286
41%
Kendrick City
197
38%
Moscow City
9,764
52%
Potlatch City
314
34%
Troy City
315
17%
Town


16057
22%
57%
21%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (39)
Job
Opportunities
poor (41)
Community
Resources
fair (56)

Household Survival Budget, Latah County

report income.
246
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$513
$661
Child Care
$939
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$131
$355
Taxes
$142
$193
Monthly Total
$1,446
$3,901
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,352
$46,812
Hourly Wage
$8.68
$23.41
ALICE IN LEMHI COUNTY
Lemhi County, 2013

Town
Salmon City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,519
54%

16059
21%
54%
25%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (62)
Job
Opportunities
poor (41)
Community
Resources
good (62)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$501
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$130
$333
Taxes
$139
$144
Monthly Total
$1,430
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,160
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.58
$21.98

report income.
247
Household Survival Budget, Lemhi County
ALICE IN LEWIS COUNTY
Lewis County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Craigmont City
223
30%
Kamiah City
603
57%
Nezperce City
173
38%
Winchester City
158
53%
Town


16061
17%
52%
31%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (59)
Job
Opportunities
good (54)
Community
Resources
poor (50)

Household Survival Budget, Lewis County

report income.
248
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$506
$626
Child Care
$939
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$131
$350
Taxes
$140
$183
Monthly Total
$1,437
$3,851
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,244
$46,212
Hourly Wage
$8.62
$23.11
ALICE IN LINCOLN COUNTY
Lincoln County, 2013

Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Dietrich City
107
53%
Richfield City
120
52%
Shoshone City
554
53%
Town

16063
14%
52%
34%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (61)
Job
Opportunities
good (58)
Community
Resources
poor (46)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$501
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$130
$333
Taxes
$139
$144
Monthly Total
$1,430
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,160
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.58
$21.98

report income.
249
Household Survival Budget, Lincoln County
ALICE IN MADISON COUNTY
Madison County, 2013

Town
Rexburg City
Sugar City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
7,378
68%
399
36%


16065
32%
40%
28%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (25)
Job
Opportunities
poor (36)
Community
Resources
poor (52)

Household Survival Budget, Madison County

report income.
250
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$488
$631
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$128
$334
Taxes
$137
$145
Monthly Total
$1,413
$3,670
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,956
$44,040
Hourly Wage
$8.48
$22.02
ALICE IN MINIDOKA COUNTY
Minidoka County, 2013

Town
Heyburn City
Paul City
Rupert City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,100
47%
368
43%
1,796
51%

16067
13%
28%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (72)
Job
Opportunities
good (58)
Community
Resources
poor (47)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$501
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$130
$333
Taxes
$139
$144
Monthly Total
$1,430
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,160
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.58
$21.98

report income.
251
Household Survival Budget, Minidoka County
ALICE IN NEZ PERCE COUNTY
Nez Perce County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Culdesac City
154
51%
Lapwai City
400
45%
13,072
34%
Town
Lewiston City


16069
11%
22%
67%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (57)
Job
Opportunities
good (57)
Community
Resources
good (63)

Household Survival Budget, Nez Perce County

report income.
252
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$402
$657
Child Care
$939
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$118
$354
Taxes
$119
$192
Monthly Total
$1,299
$3,895
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,588
$46,740
Hourly Wage
$7.79
$23.37
ALICE IN ONEIDA COUNTY
Oneida County, 2013

Town
Malad City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
841
53%

16071
15%
53%
32%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (58)
Job
Opportunities
good (54)
Community
Resources
fair (58)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$501
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$130
$333
Taxes
$139
$144
Monthly Total
$1,430
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,160
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.58
$21.98

report income.
253
Household Survival Budget, Oneida County
ALICE IN OWYHEE COUNTY
Owyhee County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Grand View City
185
69%
Homedale City
890
79%
Marsing City
496
75%
Town


16073
38%
23%
39%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (55)
Job
Opportunities
fair (48)
Community
Resources
poor (42)

Household Survival Budget, Owyhee County

report income.
254
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$431
$724
Child Care
$1,801
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$122
$482
Taxes
$125
$541
Monthly Total
$1,338
$5,301
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,056
$63,612
Hourly Wage
$8.03
$31.81
ALICE IN PAYETTE COUNTY
Payette County, 2013

Town
Fruitland City
New Plymouth City
Payette City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,879
37%
655
48%
2,580
52%

16075
20%
20%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (58)
Job
Opportunities
poor (45)
Community
Resources
poor (49)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$460
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$125
$333
Taxes
$131
$144
Monthly Total
$1,376
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,512
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.26
$21.98

report income.
255
Household Survival Budget, Payette County
ALICE IN POWER COUNTY
Power County, 2013

Town
American Falls City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,383
56%
Arbon Valley CDP
329
46%
Rockland City
133
56%


16077
12%
52%
36%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (64)
Job
Opportunities
good (78)
Community
Resources
fair (54)

Household Survival Budget, Power County

report income.
256
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$372
$626
Child Care
$939
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$114
$350
Taxes
$112
$183
Monthly Total
$1,258
$3,851
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,096
$46,212
Hourly Wage
$7.55
$23.11
ALICE IN SHOSHONE COUNTY
Shoshone County, 2013


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Kellogg City
923
37%
Mullan City
321
32%
Osburn City
700
32%
Pinehurst City
811
46%
Smelterville City
319
65%
Wallace City
366
42%
Town
16079
17%
22%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (57)
Job
Opportunities
fair (51)
Community
Resources
poor (43)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$457
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$125
$333
Taxes
$130
$144
Monthly Total
$1,372
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,464
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.23
$21.98

report income.
257
Household Survival Budget, Shoshone County
ALICE IN TETON COUNTY
Teton County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Driggs City
794
56%
Victor City
796
34%
Town


16081
10%
35%
55%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (44)
Job
Opportunities
poor (47)
Community
Resources
fair (57)

Household Survival Budget, Teton County

report income.
258
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$573
$715
Child Care
$1,801
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$139
$481
Taxes
$155
$537
Monthly Total
$1,527
$5,287
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,324
$63,444
Hourly Wage
$9.16
$31.72
ALICE IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY
Twin Falls County, 2013


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Buhl City
1,604
50%
Filer City
920
51%
Hansen City
425
47%
Kimberly City
1,124
39%
Twin Falls City
16,312
43%
Town
16083
15%
23%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (57)
Job
Opportunities
fair (53)
Community
Resources
poor (47)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$459
$655
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$125
$337
Taxes
$131
$152
Monthly Total
$1,375
$3,704
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,500
$44,448
Hourly Wage
$8.25
$22.22

report income.
259
Household Survival Budget, Twin Falls County
ALICE IN VALLEY COUNTY
Valley County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Cascade City
388
51%
Mccall City
821
33%
Town


16085
10%
24%
66%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (60)
Job
Opportunities
fair (49)
Community
Resources
good (65)

Household Survival Budget, Valley County

report income.
260
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$484
$694
Child Care
$939
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$128
$360
Taxes
$136
$209
Monthly Total
$1,408
$3,955
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,896
$47,460
Hourly Wage
$8.45
$23.73
ALICE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY
Washington County, 2013

Town
Cambridge City
Weiser City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
115
62%
1,973
53%

16087
17%
54%
29%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (55)
Job
Opportunities
poor (39)
Community
Resources
fair (58)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$460
$626
Child Care
$807
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$125
$333
Taxes
$131
$144
Monthly Total
$1,376
$3,663
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,512
$43,956
Hourly Wage
$8.26
$21.98

report income.
261
Household Survival Budget, Washington County
ALICE IN BAKER COUNTY
Baker County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Baker City
4,242
48%
Haines City
167
48%
Halfway City
169
58%
Huntington City
203
54%
Town


41001
17%
25%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (52)
Job
Opportunities
poor (42)
Community
Resources
good (64)

Household Survival Budget, Baker County

report income.
262
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$477
$627
Child Care
$850
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$137
$360
Taxes
$235
$375
Monthly Total
$1,509
$3,965
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,108
$47,580
Hourly Wage
$9.05
$23.79
ALICE IN BENTON COUNTY
Benton County, 2013

Town
Adair Village City
Corvallis City
Monroe City
Philomath City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
278
21%
21,148
49%
276
57%
1,663
33%

41003
23%
18%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (28)
Job
Opportunities
poor (47)
Community
Resources
good (69)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$450
$757
Child Care
$1,026
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$134
$404
Taxes
$226
$499
Monthly Total
$1,470
$4,439
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,640
$53,268
Hourly Wage
$8.82
$26.63

report income.
263
Household Survival Budget, Benton County
ALICE IN CLACKAMAS COUNTY
Clackamas County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Beavercreek CDP
1,424
22%
Canby City
5,730
34%
Damascus City
3,655
20%
Estacada City
1,125
46%
Gladstone City
4,518
37%
Happy Valley City
4,597
15%
Jennings Lodge CDP
3,007
33%
Town
Johnson City
252
61%
Lake Oswego City
16,123
28%
Milwaukie City
8,746
41%
Molalla City
3,162
46%
Mount Hood Village CDP
2,155
33%
Mulino CDP
778
26%
6,970
39%
Oatfield CDP
5,491
28%
Oregon City
12,451
33%
107
19%
3,722
36%
654
18%
West Linn City
9,927
23%
Wilsonville City
8,094
34%
Oak Grove CDP
Rivergrove City
Sandy City
Stafford CDP


41005
9%
21%
70%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (27)
Job
Opportunities
good (57)
Community
Resources
good (63)

Household Survival Budget, Clackamas County

report income.
264
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$659
$912
Child Care
$1,112
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$162
$438
Taxes
$301
$600
Monthly Total
$1,782
$4,815
ANNUAL TOTAL
$21,384
$57,780
Hourly Wage
$10.69
$28.89
ALICE IN CLATSOP COUNTY
Clatsop County, 2013


Town
Astoria City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
4,190
45%
Cannon Beach City
732
41%
Gearhart City
684
32%
Jeffers Gardens CDP
196
41%
Seaside City
2,782
38%
Warrenton City
1,911
50%
Westport CDP
194
44%
41007
14%
28%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (47)
Job
Opportunities
poor (46)
Community
Resources
good (61)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$543
$797
Child Care
$1,021
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$146
$409
Taxes
$257
$514
Monthly Total
$1,606
$4,494
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,272
$53,928
Hourly Wage
$9.64
$26.96

report income.
265
Household Survival Budget, Clatsop County
ALICE IN COLUMBIA COUNTY
Columbia County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Clatskanie City
670
50%
Columbia City
820
23%
Deer Island CDP
182
57%
Rainier City
769
45%
Scappoose City
2,572
33%
St. Helens City
4,707
44%
Vernonia City
830
40%
Warren CDP
710
22%
Town


41009
13%
26%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (43)
Job
Opportunities
fair (49)
Community
Resources
good (59)

Household Survival Budget, Columbia County

report income.
266
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$659
$912
Child Care
$1,037
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$162
$427
Taxes
$301
$568
Monthly Total
$1,782
$4,697
ANNUAL TOTAL
$21,384
$56,364
Hourly Wage
$10.69
$28.18
ALICE IN COOS COUNTY
Coos County, 2013


41011
18%
53%
29%
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bandon City
1,628
52%
Barview CDP
724
61%
Bunker Hill CDP
458
72%
Coos Bay City
6,693
49%
Coquille City
1,528
43%
Glasgow CDP
342
37%
Lakeside City
741
44%
Myrtle Point City
983
55%
North Bend City
3,784
40%
315
60%
Town
Powers City
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (46)
Job
Opportunities
poor (38)
Community
Resources
good (60)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$460
$684
Child Care
$900
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$135
$376
Taxes
$229
$418
Monthly Total
$1,484
$4,131
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,808
$49,572
Hourly Wage
$8.90
$24.79

report income.
267
Household Survival Budget, Coos County
ALICE IN CROOK COUNTY
Crook County, 2013

Town
Prineville City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
3,946
55%


41013
17%
55%
28%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (40)
Job
Opportunities
poor (43)
Community
Resources
good (59)

Household Survival Budget, Crook County

report income.
268
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$416
$663
Child Care
$851
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$129
$366
Taxes
$214
$390
Monthly Total
$1,419
$4,023
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,028
$48,276
Hourly Wage
$8.51
$24.14
ALICE IN CURRY COUNTY
Curry County, 2013


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Brookings City
3,011
29%
Gold Beach City
1,048
41%
Harbor CDP
1,123
56%
Nesika Beach CDP
230
24%
Port Orford City
579
52%
Town
41015
15%
26%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (42)
Job
Opportunities
poor (36)
Community
Resources
good (59)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$515
$799
Child Care
$878
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$142
$389
Taxes
$247
$455
Monthly Total
$1,564
$4,274
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,768
$51,288
Hourly Wage
$9.38
$25.64

report income.
269
Household Survival Budget, Curry County
ALICE IN DESCHUTES COUNTY
Deschutes County, 2013

Town
Bend City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
30,413
43%
Black Butte Ranch CDP
121
13%
Deschutes River Woods

CDP
1,900
43%
Eagle Crest CDP
848
20%
La Pine City
740
69%
10,503
48%
Sisters City
911
42%
Sunriver CDP
609
30%
Redmond City
Terrebonne CDP
Three Rivers CDP
Tumalo CDP
596
36%
1,471
43%
180
62%


41017
17%
25%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (45)
Job
Opportunities
fair (49)
Community
Resources
fair (58)

Household Survival Budget, Deschutes County

report income.
270
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$557
$803
Child Care
$975
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$148
$403
Taxes
$261
$497
Monthly Total
$1,626
$4,431
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,512
$53,172
Hourly Wage
$9.76
$26.59
ALICE IN DOUGLAS COUNTY
Douglas County, 2013


41019
18%
25%
57%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (52)
Job
Opportunities
fair (48)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Canyonville City
835
47%
Days Creek CDP
121
50%
Dillard CDP
162
66%
Drain City
425
48%
Fair Oaks CDP
120
4%
Glendale City
326
60%
Glide CDP
735
42%
Green CDP
2,951
45%
Lookingglass CDP
434
29%
Melrose CDP
289
45%
1,386
48%
386
46%
1,815
53%
412
52%
Roseburg City
9,730
46%
Roseburg North CDP
2,665
54%
Sutherlin City
3,004
49%
Tri-City CDP
1,357
47%
138
36%
Winston City
1,818
54%
Yoncalla City
483
56%
Town
Myrtle Creek City

Oakland City
Reedsport City
Riddle City
Winchester Bay CDP
Community
Resources
fair (54)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$476
$740
Child Care
$915
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$137
$385
Taxes
$234
$446
Monthly Total
$1,507
$4,239
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,084
$50,868
Hourly Wage
$9.04
$25.43

report income.
271
Household Survival Budget, Douglas County
ALICE IN GILLIAM COUNTY
Gilliam County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Arlington City
258
19%
Condon City
314
40%
Town


41021
11%
18%
71%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (57)
Job
Opportunities
good (57)
Community
Resources
poor (51)

Household Survival Budget, Gilliam County

report income.
272
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$404
$626
Child Care
$946
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$127
$374
Taxes
$210
$413
Monthly Total
$1,401
$4,112
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,812
$49,344
Hourly Wage
$8.41
$24.67
ALICE IN GRANT COUNTY
Grant County, 2013

Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Canyon City Town
277
46%
John Day City
803
49%
Mount Vernon City
352
48%
Prairie City
443
51%
Town

41023
16%
28%
56%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (53)
Job
Opportunities
poor (38)
Community
Resources
good (59)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$404
$626
Child Care
$939
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$127
$373
Taxes
$210
$410
Monthly Total
$1,401
$4,101
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,812
$49,212
Hourly Wage
$8.41
$24.61

report income.
273
Household Survival Budget, Grant County
ALICE IN HARNEY COUNTY
Harney County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Burns City
1,233
36%
Hines City
662
50%
Town


41025
18%
22%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (55)
Job
Opportunities
poor (47)
Community
Resources
good (66)

Household Survival Budget, Harney County

report income.
274
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$404
$626
Child Care
$757
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$127
$347
Taxes
$210
$335
Monthly Total
$1,401
$3,818
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,812
$45,816
Hourly Wage
$8.41
$22.91
ALICE IN HOOD RIVER COUNTY
Hood River County, 2013

Town
Cascade Locks City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
409
54%
3,014
49%
Odell CDP
647
38%
Parkdale CDP
110
25%
Hood River City

41027
8%
32%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (32)
Job
Opportunities
good (63)
Community
Resources
poor (50)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$671
$831
Child Care
$1,165
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$164
$434
Taxes
$305
$588
Monthly Total
$1,800
$4,771
ANNUAL TOTAL
$21,600
$57,252
Hourly Wage
$10.80
$28.63

report income.
275
Household Survival Budget, Hood River County
ALICE IN JACKSON COUNTY
Jackson County, 2013

Town
Ashland City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
9,277
43%
Butte Falls Town
140
50%
Central Point City
6,585
40%
Eagle Point City
2,957
36%
Foots Creek CDP
358
49%
Gold Hill City
459
51%
Jacksonville City
1,473
46%
Medford City
29,201
48%
Phoenix City
2,134
50%
Prospect CDP
220
61%
1,007
57%
345
17%
Shady Cove City
1,350
56%
Talent City
2,741
54%
Rogue River City

Ruch CDP
Trail CDP
White City CDP
Wimer CDP
228
73%
2,413
41%
319
67%


41029
17%
55%
28%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (46)
Job
Opportunities
fair (49)
Community
Resources
good (60)

Household Survival Budget, Jackson County

report income.
276
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$602
$823
Child Care
$930
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$154
$399
Taxes
$278
$487
Monthly Total
$1,694
$4,392
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,328
$52,704
Hourly Wage
$10.16
$26.35


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Camp Sherman CDP
126
21%
Culver City
565
54%
Madras City
2,410
51%
Metolius City
280
49%
Warm Springs CDP
794
41%
Town
41031
15%
24%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (54)
Job
Opportunities
poor (39)
Community
Resources
good (61)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$390
$626
Child Care
$863
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$126
$362
Taxes
$206
$380
Monthly Total
$1,382
$3,984
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,584
$47,808
Hourly Wage
$8.29
$23.90

report income.
277
ALICE IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY
Josephine County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Cave Junction City
826
66%
Fruitdale CDP
425
39%
14,409
56%
Kerby CDP
119
55%
Merlin CDP
630
33%
New Hope CDP
714
32%
Redwood CDP
1,280
43%
Selma CDP
248
42%
Takilma CDP
145
54%
Williams CDP
468
42%
Town
Grants Pass City


41033
17%
53%
30%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (43)
Job
Opportunities
poor (34)
Community
Resources
fair (53)

Household Survival Budget, Josephine County

report income.
278
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$424
$713
Child Care
$826
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$130
$369
Taxes
$217
$400
Monthly Total
$1,431
$4,061
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,172
$48,732
Hourly Wage
$8.59
$24.37
ALICE IN KLAMATH COUNTY
Klamath County, 2013

Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Altamont CDP
7,806
42%
Bonanza Town
162
65%
Chiloquin City
277
65%
8,968
52%
Malin City
195
60%
Merrill City
325
49%
Town
Klamath Falls City

41035
17%
52%
31%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (52)
Job
Opportunities
poor (44)
Community
Resources
fair (54)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$422
$684
Child Care
$826
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$130
$365
Taxes
$216
$388
Monthly Total
$1,428
$4,016
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,136
$48,192
Hourly Wage
$8.57
$24.10

report income.
279
Household Survival Budget, Klamath County
ALICE IN LAKE COUNTY
Lake County, 2013

Town
Lakeview Town
Paisley City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,269
38%
172
39%


41037
19%
54%
27%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (52)
Job
Opportunities
poor (42)
Community
Resources
poor (47)

Household Survival Budget, Lake County

report income.
280
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$404
$626
Child Care
$775
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$127
$349
Taxes
$210
$341
Monthly Total
$1,401
$3,844
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,812
$46,128
Hourly Wage
$8.41
$23.06
ALICE IN LANE COUNTY
Lane County, 2013


57%
23%
Coburg City
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
411
39%
Cottage Grove City
4,010
50%
Creswell City
1,851
41%
Dunes City
588
34%
Eugene City
65,201
44%
Florence City
4,399
51%
Junction City
2,044
47%
385
45%
Oakridge City
1,503
46%
Springfield City
23,734
48%
Veneta City
1,692
41%
Westfir City
116
47%
Lowell City
41039
20%
Town

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (37)
Job
Opportunities
poor (43)
Community
Resources
fair (56)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$488
$821
Child Care
$1,029
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$139
$413
Taxes
$238
$527
Monthly Total
$1,525
$4,543
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,300
$54,516
Hourly Wage
$9.15
$27.26

report income.
281
Household Survival Budget, Lane County
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Depoe Bay City
715
42%
Lincoln Beach CDP
993
33%
Lincoln City
3,662
52%
Newport City
4,481
42%
Rose Lodge CDP
838
36%
Siletz City
515
50%
Toledo City
1,258
40%
Waldport City
973
45%
Yachats City
418
42%
Town


41041
15%
27%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (49)
Job
Opportunities
poor (45)
Community
Resources
good (62)


report income.
282
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$553
$738
Child Care
$959
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$147
$391
Taxes
$260
$463
Monthly Total
$1,620
$4,304
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,440
$51,648
Hourly Wage
$9.72
$25.82
ALICE IN LINN COUNTY
Linn County, 2013


56%
27%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (41)
Job
Opportunities
fair (48)
Albany City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
19,370
43%
Brownsville City
639
38%
Crabtree CDP
178
28%
Crawfordsville CDP
115
48%
Halsey City
343
34%
1,171
36%
Holley CDP
155
41%
Lacomb CDP
103
48%
Lebanon City
5,945
46%
Lyons City
372
33%
Mill City
543
48%
Millersburg City
643
29%
Scio City
268
37%
Shedd CDP
142
12%
Sodaville City
147
48%
South Lebanon CDP
507
46%
3,615
55%
418
46%
Harrisburg City
41043
17%
Town
Sweet Home City

Tangent City
Community
Resources
fair (55)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$469
$734
Child Care
$950
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$136
$389
Taxes
$232
$458
Monthly Total
$1,497
$4,284
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,964
$51,408
Hourly Wage
$8.98
$25.70

report income.
283
Household Survival Budget, Linn County
ALICE IN MALHEUR COUNTY
Malheur County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Annex CDP
100
44%
Nyssa City
1,097
47%
Ontario City
4,258
65%
569
61%
Town
Vale City


41045
24%
44%
32%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (42)
Job
Opportunities
poor (41)
Community
Resources
fair (55)

Household Survival Budget, Malheur County

report income.
284
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$432
$626
Child Care
$675
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$131
$336
Taxes
$220
$308
Monthly Total
$1,443
$3,698
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,316
$44,376
Hourly Wage
$8.66
$22.19
ALICE IN MARION COUNTY
Marion County, 2013

27%
57%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

Housing
Affordability

poor (36)
Job
Opportunities
fair (53)
47%
342
29%
Brooks CDP
211
56%
Donald City
373
31%
5,355
44%
Gates City
272
49%
Gervais City
619
45%
6,386
56%
Hubbard City
979
43%
Jefferson City
1,014
50%
Keizer City
13,542
43%
Marion CDP
114
26%
Mount Angel City
1,221
46%
Salem City
59,637
47%
140
49%
3,558
39%
St. Paul City
140
24%
Stayton City
2,909
53%
Sublimity City
1,122
37%
794
40%
7,732
49%
Silverton City
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,194
Scotts Mills City

to 100 (best).
Total HH
Aurora City
Hayesville CDP
41047
16%
Aumsville City
Four Corners CDP

Town
Turner City
Woodburn City
Community
Resources
fair (54)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$530
$756
Child Care
$925
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$144
$389
Taxes
$252
$457
Monthly Total
$1,586
$4,280
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,032
$51,360
Hourly Wage
$9.52
$25.68

report income.
285
Household Survival Budget, Marion County
ALICE IN MORROW COUNTY
Morrow County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Boardman City
920
49%
Heppner City
594
51%
Ione City
132
24%
Irrigon City
619
38%
Lexington Town
102
43%
Town


41049
15%
26%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (55)
Job
Opportunities
good (58)
Community
Resources
fair (53)

Household Survival Budget, Morrow County

report income.
286
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$440
$682
Child Care
$823
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$132
$364
Taxes
$222
$386
Monthly Total
$1,454
$4,008
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,448
$48,096
Hourly Wage
$8.72
$24.05
ALICE IN MULTNOMAH COUNTY
Multnomah County, 2013


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Fairview City
3,815
29%
Gresham City
38,775
36%
376
16%
Portland City
253,021
30%
Troutdale City
5,812
25%
Wood Village City
1,241
41%
Town
Maywood Park City
41051
16%
15%
69%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (23)
Job
Opportunities
fair (51)
Community
Resources
good (62)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$659
$912
Child Care
$1,083
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$58
$88
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$122
$347
Taxes
$198
$335
Monthly Total
$1,347
$3,818
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,164
$45,816
Hourly Wage
$8.08
$22.91

report income.
287
Household Survival Budget, Multnomah County
ALICE IN POLK COUNTY
Polk County, 2013

Town
Dallas City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
5,598
39%
Falls City
362
54%
Fort Hill CDP
129
90%
Grand Ronde CDP
572
45%
Independence City
2,867
51%
Monmouth City
3,365
59%


41053
17%
22%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (35)
Job
Opportunities
poor (44)
Community
Resources
poor (47)

Household Survival Budget, Polk County

report income.
288
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$530
$756
Child Care
$927
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$144
$389
Taxes
$252
$458
Monthly Total
$1,586
$4,283
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,032
$51,396
Hourly Wage
$9.52
$25.70
ALICE IN SHERMAN COUNTY
Sherman County, 2013

Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Moro City
174
51%
Rufus City
103
51%
Wasco City
212
38%
Town

41055
20%
15%
65%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (53)
Job
Opportunities
fair (49)
Community
Resources
fair (57)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$410
$636
Child Care
$946
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$128
$375
Taxes
$212
$417
Monthly Total
$1,410
$4,127
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,920
$49,524
Hourly Wage
$8.46
$24.76

report income.
289
Household Survival Budget, Sherman County
ALICE IN TILLAMOOK COUNTY
Tillamook County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bay City
522
41%
Bayside Gardens CDP
359
62%
Garibaldi City
344
57%
Hebo CDP
168
28%
Idaville CDP
137
70%
Manzanita City
185
42%
Nehalem City
116
33%
Netarts CDP
479
47%
Oceanside CDP
176
23%
Pacific City CDP
407
58%
Rockaway Beach City
537
56%
1,976
55%
163
66%
Town
Tillamook City
Wheeler City


41057
15%
52%
33%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (27)
Job
Opportunities
fair (49)
Community
Resources
fair (56)

Household Survival Budget, Tillamook County

report income.
290
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$453
$714
Child Care
$944
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$134
$386
Taxes
$227
$448
Monthly Total
$1,474
$4,245
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,688
$50,940
Hourly Wage
$8.84
$25.47
ALICE IN UMATILLA COUNTY
Umatilla County, 2013


21%
63%
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Adams City
140
21%
Athena City
356
31%
Echo City
232
45%
Gopher Flats CDP
151
41%
Hermiston City
6,028
39%
Milton-Freewater City
2,531
54%
289
51%
Pendleton City
6,260
39%
Pilot Rock City
565
44%
Stanfield City
758
32%
Tutuilla CDP
173
24%
Umapine CDP
111
54%
Umatilla City
1,512
39%
Weston City
253
28%
Mission CDP
41059
16%
Total HH
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (57)
Job
Opportunities
fair (53)
Community
Resources
poor (46)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$374
$629
Child Care
$931
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$123
$372
Taxes
$200
$408
Monthly Total
$1,357
$4,093
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,284
$49,116
Hourly Wage
$8.14
$24.56

report income.
291
Household Survival Budget, Umatilla County
ALICE IN UNION COUNTY
Union County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Cove City
228
22%
Elgin City
596
40%
Imbler City
109
29%
Island City
419
25%
5,574
47%
North Powder City
171
43%
Union City
781
38%
Town
La Grande City


41061
21%
20%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (44)
Job
Opportunities
good (57)
Community
Resources
good (60)

Household Survival Budget, Union County

report income.
292
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$391
$657
Child Care
$825
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$126
$361
Taxes
$206
$377
Monthly Total
$1,383
$3,973
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,596
$47,676
Hourly Wage
$8.30
$23.84
ALICE IN WALLOWA COUNTY
Wallowa County, 2013

Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Enterprise City
811
39%
Joseph City
461
39%
Wallowa City
367
49%
Town

41063
16%
23%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (57)
Job
Opportunities
poor (43)
Community
Resources
good (61)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$434
$673
Child Care
$946
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$131
$380
Taxes
$220
$432
Monthly Total
$1,445
$4,184
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,340
$50,208
Hourly Wage
$8.67
$25.10

report income.
293
Household Survival Budget, Wallowa County
ALICE IN WASCO COUNTY
Wasco County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Chenoweth CDP
699
44%
Dufur City
194
46%
Maupin City
217
55%
Mosier City
231
49%
Pine Hollow CDP
199
46%
6,056
47%
Town
The Dalles City


41065
13%
52%
35%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (29)
Job
Opportunities
fair (48)
Community
Resources
good (59)

Household Survival Budget, Wasco County

report income.
294
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$506
$705
Child Care
$1,074
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$141
$403
Taxes
$244
$497
Monthly Total
$1,551
$4,432
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,612
$53,184
Hourly Wage
$9.31
$26.59
ALICE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY
Washington County, 2013


41067
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Aloha CDP
16,677
29%
Banks City
517
24%
Beaverton City
38,494
37%
Bethany CDP
7,402
17%
Bull Mountain CDP
3,059
17%
Cedar Hills CDP
3,641
31%
Cedar Mill CDP
5,774
20%
Cornelius City
3,374
38%
496
42%
Forest Grove City
7,677
43%
Garden Home-Whitford
CDP
2,923
36%
Town
Durham City
10%
24%
66%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Gaston City
245
36%
Hillsboro City
34,941
35%
King City
1,944
52%
Metzger CDP
1,592
44%
783
31%
Oak Hills CDP
4,305
25%
Raleigh Hills CDP
2,895
35%
Rockcreek CDP
3,672
28%
Sherwood City
6,380
23%
Tigard City
19,225
35%
Tualatin City
10,613
32%
West Haven-Sylvan CDP
3,738
19%
West Slope CDP
2,980
34%
North Plains City

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (27)
Job
Opportunities
good (66)
Community
Resources
good (62)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$659
$912
Child Care
$1,132
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$162
$441
Taxes
$301
$608
Monthly Total
$1,782
$4,846
ANNUAL TOTAL
$21,384
$58,152
Hourly Wage
$10.69
$29.08

report income.
295
Household Survival Budget, Washington County
ALICE IN WHEELER COUNTY
Wheeler County, 2013

Town
Fossil City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
214
34%


41069
16%
17%
67%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (59)
Job
Opportunities
fair (49)
Community
Resources
good (60)

Household Survival Budget, Wheeler County

report income.
296
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$404
$626
Child Care
$946
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$127
$374
Taxes
$210
$413
Monthly Total
$1,401
$4,112
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,812
$49,344
Hourly Wage
$8.41
$24.67
ALICE IN YAMHILL COUNTY
Yamhill County, 2013


41071
12%
28%
60%
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Amity City
546
44%
Carlton City
704
41%
Dayton City
848
49%
Dundee City
1,154
30%
Lafayette City
1,021
40%
Mcminnville City
11,577
52%
Newberg City
7,269
42%
Sheridan City
1,622
62%
Willamina City
645
64%
Yamhill City
325
27%
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (36)
Job
Opportunities
fair (50)
Community
Resources
poor (52)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$659
$912
Child Care
$927
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$162
$412
Taxes
$301
$523
Monthly Total
$1,782
$4,527
ANNUAL TOTAL
$21,384
$54,324
Hourly Wage
$10.69
$27.16

report income.
297
Household Survival Budget, Yamhill County
ALICE IN ADAMS COUNTY
Adams County, 2013

Town
Lind Town
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
159
31%
Othello City
2,218
49%
Ritzville City
759
54%
Washtucna Town
104
34%


53001
19%
53%
28%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (47)
Job
Opportunities
fair (53)
Community
Resources
poor (44)

Household Survival Budget, Adams County

report income.
298
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$408
$626
Child Care
$1,070
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$118
$357
Taxes
$116
$123
Monthly Total
$1,302
$3,929
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,624
$47,148
Hourly Wage
$7.81
$23.57
ALICE IN ASOTIN COUNTY
Asotin County, 2013


Town
Asotin City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
422
33%
Clarkston City
3,136
53%
Clarkston HeightsVineland CDP
2,778
16%
West ClarkstonHighland CDP
2,130
38%
53003
14%
23%
63%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (46)
Job
Opportunities
fair (49)
Community
Resources
good (60)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$402
$657
Child Care
$1,395
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$118
$403
Taxes
$115
$221
Monthly Total
$1,295
$4,429
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,540
$53,148
Hourly Wage
$7.77
$26.57

report income.
299
Household Survival Budget, Asotin County
ALICE IN BENTON COUNTY
Benton County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Benton City
1,117
38%
Finley CDP
2,075
23%
Kennewick City
27,630
34%
Prosser City
2,170
34%
Richland City
20,368
27%
West Richland City
4,372
16%
Town


53005
13%
17%
70%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (57)
Job
Opportunities
good (58)
Community
Resources
poor (50)

Household Survival Budget, Benton County

report income.
300
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$526
$770
Child Care
$1,192
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$133
$391
Taxes
$140
$196
Monthly Total
$1,459
$4,302
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,508
$51,624
Hourly Wage
$8.75
$25.81
ALICE IN CHELAN COUNTY
Chelan County, 2013

53007
13%
23%
64%
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Cashmere City
1,068
43%
Chelan City
1,534
39%
Chelan Falls CDP
115
88%
Entiat City
495
41%
1,029
46%
Manson CDP
619
42%
South Wenatchee CDP
494
23%
Sunnyslope CDP
1,279
17%
Wenatchee City
11,350
37%
Leavenworth City

Total HH
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (47)
Job
Opportunities
fair (53)
Community
Resources
fair (55)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$487
$818
Child Care
$1,019
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$128
$375
Taxes
$132
$162
Monthly Total
$1,407
$4,127
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,884
$49,524
Hourly Wage
$8.44
$24.76

report income.
301
Household Survival Budget, Chelan County
ALICE IN CLALLAM COUNTY
Clallam County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bell Hill CDP
397
16%
Carlsborg CDP
543
59%
Clallam Bay CDP
172
76%
1,541
54%
Jamestown CDP
145
27%
Neah Bay CDP
277
56%
Port Angeles City
8,318
45%
Port Angeles East CDP
1,422
40%
186
37%
3,089
43%
Town
Forks City
River Road CDP

Sequim City


53009
17%
22%
61%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (53)
Job
Opportunities
fair (50)
Community
Resources
fair (55)

Household Survival Budget, Clallam County

report income.
302
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$588
$973
Child Care
$1,235
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$140
$423
Taxes
$152
$264
Monthly Total
$1,540
$4,648
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,480
$55,776
Hourly Wage
$9.24
$27.89
ALICE IN CLARK COUNTY
Clark County, 2013

53011
11%
22%
67%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (34)
Job
Opportunities
good (58)
Amboy CDP
Community
Resources
fair (55)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
441
36%
Barberton CDP
2,072
20%
Battle Ground City
5,745
33%
Brush Prairie CDP
923
22%
6,934
20%
Cherry Grove CDP
212
18%
Dollars Corner CDP
509
34%
Duluth CDP
435
40%
Felida CDP
2,477
10%
Fern Prairie CDP
658
22%
Five Corners CDP
6,020
32%
Hazel Dell CDP
7,829
45%
Hockinson CDP
1,610
20%
La Center City
1,008
25%
Lake Shore CDP
2,416
22%
Lewisville CDP
609
15%
Meadow Glade CDP
772
22%
Minnehaha CDP
3,571
35%
Mount Vista CDP
3,088
23%
Orchards CDP
6,717
32%
Ridgefield City
1,680
18%
Salmon Creek CDP
7,748
30%
Vancouver City
64,090
43%
Venersborg CDP
1,107
17%
Walnut Grove CDP
4,087
30%
Washougal City
5,142
31%
489
29%
Camas City

Town
Yacolt Town

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$659
$912
Child Care
$1,235
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$149
$415
Taxes
$167
$247
Monthly Total
$1,635
$4,562
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,620
$54,744
Hourly Wage
$9.81
$27.37

report income.
303
Household Survival Budget, Clark County
ALICE IN COLUMBIA COUNTY
Columbia County, 2013

Town
Dayton City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,167
40%


53013
17%
21%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (46)
Job
Opportunities
fair (53)
Community
Resources
poor (45)

Household Survival Budget, Columbia County

report income.
304
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$414
$636
Child Care
$1,084
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$119
$360
Taxes
$117
$130
Monthly Total
$1,310
$3,963
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,720
$47,556
Hourly Wage
$7.86
$23.78
ALICE IN COWLITZ COUNTY
Cowlitz County, 2013


19%
67%
Castle Rock City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
928
50%
Kalama City
1,027
32%
Kelso City
4,670
48%
Longview City
15,107
46%
Longview Heights CDP
1,307
32%
124
54%
West Side Highway CDP
1,935
30%
Woodland City
1,697
31%
Ryderwood CDP
53015
14%
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (49)
Job
Opportunities
fair (51)
Community
Resources
fair (54)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$441
$707
Child Care
$1,183
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$122
$382
Taxes
$123
$176
Monthly Total
$1,346
$4,201
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,152
$50,412
Hourly Wage
$8.08
$25.21

report income.
305
Household Survival Budget, Cowlitz County
ALICE IN DOUGLAS COUNTY
Douglas County, 2013

Town
Bridgeport City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
749
56%
5,060
37%
Mansfield Town
142
51%
Rock Island City
277
53%
Waterville Town
583
41%
East Wenatchee City


53017
11%
23%
66%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (43)
Job
Opportunities
good (56)
Community
Resources
poor (50)

Household Survival Budget, Douglas County

report income.
306
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$487
$818
Child Care
$1,019
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$128
$375
Taxes
$132
$162
Monthly Total
$1,407
$4,127
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,884
$49,524
Hourly Wage
$8.44
$24.76
ALICE IN FERRY COUNTY
Ferry County, 2013

Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Barneys Junction CDP
106
92%
Curlew Lake CDP
204
52%
Inchelium CDP
168
45%
Republic City
518
58%
Town

53019
19%
51%
30%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (65)
Job
Opportunities
poor (43)
Community
Resources
fair (56)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$462
$638
Child Care
$1,217
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$125
$378
Taxes
$127
$167
Monthly Total
$1,374
$4,153
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,488
$49,836
Hourly Wage
$8.24
$24.92

report income.
307
Household Survival Budget, Ferry County
ALICE IN FRANKLIN COUNTY
Franklin County, 2013

Town
Basin City CDP
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
338
64%
1,003
42%
Mesa City
130
52%
Pasco City
18,908
44%
901
21%
Connell City
West Pasco CDP


53021
19%
23%
58%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (28)
Job
Opportunities
good (57)
Community
Resources
poor (52)

Household Survival Budget, Franklin County

report income.
308
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$526
$770
Child Care
$1,192
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$133
$391
Taxes
$140
$196
Monthly Total
$1,459
$4,302
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,508
$51,624
Hourly Wage
$8.75
$25.81
ALICE IN GARFIELD COUNTY
Garfield County, 2013

Town
Pomeroy City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
619
35%

53023
8%
23%
69%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (70)
Job
Opportunities
good (60)
Community
Resources
good (64)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$408
$626
Child Care
$1,395
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$118
$399
Taxes
$116
$212
Monthly Total
$1,302
$4,385
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,624
$52,620
Hourly Wage
$7.81
$26.31

report income.
309
Household Survival Budget, Garfield County
ALICE IN GRANT COUNTY
Grant County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Cascade Valley CDP
961
47%
Coulee City Town
234
45%
Desert Aire CDP
374
41%
Electric City
435
34%
Ephrata City
2,804
47%
George City
181
32%
Grand Coulee City
505
59%
Lakeview CDP
434
56%
Mattawa City
914
61%
Moses Lake City
7,711
44%
Moses Lake North CDP
1,337
62%
Quincy City
2,017
53%
Royal City
507
64%
Soap Lake City
762
73%
Warden City
796
54%
Wilson Creek Town
115
44%
Town


53025
17%
26%
57%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (52)
Job
Opportunities
fair (52)
Community
Resources
poor (46)

Household Survival Budget, Grant County

report income.
310
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$538
$759
Child Care
$1,072
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$134
$374
Taxes
$142
$160
Monthly Total
$1,474
$4,118
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,688
$49,416
Hourly Wage
$8.84
$24.71
ALICE IN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY
Grays Harbor County, 2013

Town
Aberdeen City

6,003
46%
111
23%
Brady CDP
339
22%
1,092
27%
Cohassett Beach CDP
201
85%
Copalis Beach CDP
204
64%
Cosmopolis City
600
30%
1,121
45%
Grayland CDP
428
55%
Hoquiam City
3,417
52%
Humptulips CDP
112
30%
Malone CDP
197
37%
Mccleary City
707
36%
1,507
35%
Neilton CDP
163
33%
Oakville City
217
42%
Ocean City CDP
101
86%
2,627
33%
Satsop CDP
219
32%
Taholah CDP
273
58%
Westport City
879
55%
Elma City
53027
19%
57%
24%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (52)
Job
Opportunities
poor (39)
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Aberdeen Gardens CDP

Central Park CDP
Total HH
Montesano City
Ocean Shores City
Community
Resources
fair (57)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$448
$673
Child Care
$1,118
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$123
$369
Taxes
$124
$149
Monthly Total
$1,355
$4,062
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,260
$48,744
Hourly Wage
$8.13
$24.37

report income.
311
Household Survival Budget, Grays Harbor County
ALICE IN ISLAND COUNTY
Island County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Camano CDP
6,426
21%
Clinton CDP
422
25%
Coupeville Town
893
43%
Freeland CDP
859
40%
Langley City
535
44%
9,274
38%
196
55%
Town
Oak Harbor City

Whidbey Island Station
CDP


53029
12%
21%
67%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (42)
Job
Opportunities
poor (45)
Community
Resources
good (60)

Household Survival Budget, Island County

report income.
312
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$552
$875
Child Care
$1,352
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$136
$425
Taxes
$145
$269
Monthly Total
$1,493
$4,674
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,916
$56,088
Hourly Wage
$8.96
$28.04


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Brinnon CDP
405
46%
Marrowstone CDP
499
25%
Port Hadlock-Irondale
CDP
1,601
56%
Port Ludlow CDP
1,154
21%
Port Townsend City
4,522
44%
252
38%
Town
Quilcene CDP
53031
12%
28%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (40)
Job
Opportunities
poor (46)
Community
Resources
good (62)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$566
$952
Child Care
$1,116
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$137
$405
Taxes
$148
$225
Monthly Total
$1,511
$4,451
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,132
$53,412
Hourly Wage
$9.07
$26.71

report income.
313
ALICE IN KING COUNTY
Population: 2,044,449 | Number of Households: 819,434

KING COUNTY

report income.
314

53033
11%
13%
76%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (30)
Job
Opportunities
good (68)
Community
Resources
good (62)

Household Survival Budget, King County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$758
$1,104
Child Care
$1,569
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$78
$107
Health Care
$114
$456
Miscellaneous
$127
$404
Taxes
$131
$224
Monthly Total
$1,399
$4,443
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,788
$53,316
Hourly Wage
$8.39
$26.66
ALICE IN KING COUNTY

Population: 2,044,449 | Number of Households: 819,434

King County, 2013

% ALICE
&
Poverty
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Algona City
931
28%
Pacific City
Ames Lake CDP
543
14%
Ravensdale CDP
2,287
33%
407
Auburn City
29,139
33%
13%
Redmond City
23,651
Baring CDP
113
16%
57%
Renton City
38,197
Beaux Arts Village Town
30%
147
1%
Riverbend CDP
830
13%
Bellevue City
52,279
18%
Sammamish City
15,757
7%
Black Diamond City
1,592
16%
Seatac City
9,589
41%
Boulevard Park CDP
1,714
36%
Seattle City
297,920
27%
Bryn Mawr-Skyway CDP
6,351
31%
Shadow Lake CDP
1,013
15%
Burien City
18,371
38%
Shoreline City
21,056
25%
Carnation City
723
23%
Snoqualmie City
3,760
7%
Clyde Hill City
988
6%
Tanner CDP
367
5%
8,293
9%
Tukwila City
7,279
42%
Covington City
5,957
10%
Des Moines City
11,559
29%
Union Hill-Novelty Hill

CDP
8,165
9%
Duvall City
2,206
13%
Vashon CDP
5,140
23%
East Renton Highlands

CDP
4,483
14%
White Center CDP
5,476
44%
Enumclaw City
4,258
30%
Woodinville City
Fairwood CDP
7,350
16%
Yarrow Point Town
Fall City CDP
852
21%
Federal Way City
32,142
30%
Hobart CDP
2,546
15%
159
10%
Issaquah City
13,431
16%
Kenmore City
7,968
21%
Kent City
43,876
35%
Kirkland City
35,441
17%
Klahanie CDP
4,328
10%
Lake Forest Park City
5,017
14%
Lake Holm CDP
1,370
11%
Lake Marcel-Stillwater
CDP
422
3%
Lake Morton-Berrydale
CDP
3,765
13%
Lakeland North CDP
4,796
19%
Lakeland South CDP
4,633
17%
Maple Heights-Lake
Desire CDP
1,234
13%
Maple Valley City
8,057
11%
Medina City
1,046
13%
Mercer Island City
9,439
13%
Mirrormont CDP
1,630
7%
Newcastle City
4,140
11%
Normandy Park City
2,638
15%
North Bend City
2,257
24%
Cottage Lake CDP
Hunts Point Town
Town
Wilderness Rim CDP
650
7%
4,652
15%
424
5%
KING COUNTY
Total HH
Town
315
King County, 2013
ALICE IN KITSAP COUNTY
Kitsap County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bainbridge Island City
9,586
16%
Bangor Base CDP
1,191
31%
Bethel CDP
1,345
20%
Bremerton City
15,247
39%
Burley CDP
758
28%
Chico CDP
870
14%
1,887
27%
838
12%
1,106
22%
Town
East Port Orchard CDP

Enetai CDP
Erlands Point-Kitsap
Lake CDP
Gorst CDP
164
34%
Hansville CDP
1,648
16%
Indianola CDP
1,380
19%
Keyport CDP
205
0%
Kingston CDP
889
23%
Lofall CDP
862
15%
Manchester CDP
2,089
19%
Navy Yard City CDP
1,124
34%
Parkwood CDP
2,821
26%
Port Gamble Tribal

Community CDP
218
29%
Port Orchard City
4,507
28%
Poulsbo City
3,671
25%
Rocky Point CDP
724
21%
Seabeck CDP
477
15%
8,213
20%
Southworth CDP
865
10%
Suquamish CDP
1,711
25%
Tracyton CDP
2,112
21%
Silverdale CDP


53035
10%
13%
77%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (39)
Job
Opportunities
fair (52)
Community
Resources
good (61)

Household Survival Budget, Kitsap County

report income.
316
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$556
$934
Child Care
$1,235
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$58
$88
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$101
$340
Taxes
$87
$85
Monthly Total
$1,112
$3,735
ANNUAL TOTAL
$13,344
$44,820
Hourly Wage
$6.67
$22.41
ALICE IN KITTITAS COUNTY
Kittitas County, 2013


53037
24%
57%
19%
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,011
50%
137
43%
7,174
62%
Kittitas City
523
46%
Roslyn City
356
37%
Snoqualmie Pass CDP
127
20%
South Cle Elum Town
235
38%
Thorp CDP
116
28%
Town
Cle Elum City
Easton CDP
Ellensburg City
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (40)
Job
Opportunities
poor (41)
Community
Resources
fair (58)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$554
$828
Child Care
$1,226
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$136
$403
Taxes
$145
$221
Monthly Total
$1,495
$4,431
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,940
$53,172
Hourly Wage
$8.97
$26.59

report income.
317
Household Survival Budget, Kittitas County
ALICE IN KLICKITAT COUNTY
Klickitat County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bingen City
277
45%
Dallesport CDP
530
39%
Goldendale City
1,465
50%
Klickitat CDP
130
62%
Lyle CDP
193
49%
Trout Lake CDP
189
32%
White Salmon City
929
43%
Wishram CDP
164
49%
Town


53039
14%
26%
60%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (57)
Job
Opportunities
good (63)
Community
Resources
good (65)

Household Survival Budget, Klickitat County

report income.
318
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$479
$735
Child Care
$1,181
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$127
$385
Taxes
$130
$184
Monthly Total
$1,396
$4,238
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,752
$50,856
Hourly Wage
$8.38
$25.43
ALICE IN LEWIS COUNTY
Lewis County, 2013


53041
18%
56%
26%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Centralia City
6,744
50%
Chehalis City
2,847
53%
Fords Prairie CDP
837
45%
Mineral CDP
122
76%
Morton City
468
49%
Mossyrock City
310
50%
Napavine City
640
27%
Onalaska CDP
274
27%
Packwood CDP
181
57%
Pe Ell Town
254
52%
Toledo City
283
57%
Vader City
201
49%
Winlock City
529
49%
Town

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (50)
Job
Opportunities
poor (46)
Community
Resources
fair (56)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$527
$830
Child Care
$1,170
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$133
$396
Taxes
$140
$207
Monthly Total
$1,460
$4,356
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,520
$52,272
Hourly Wage
$8.76
$26.14

report income.
319
Household Survival Budget, Lewis County
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Almira Town
122
43%
Creston Town
121
52%
Davenport City
738
38%
Harrington City
173
27%
Odessa Town
417
53%
Reardan Town
299
42%
Sprague City
249
42%
Wilbur Town
339
48%
Town


53043
13%
22%
65%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (60)
Job
Opportunities
good (54)
Community
Resources
good (64)


report income.
320
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$470
$722
Child Care
$1,395
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$126
$411
Taxes
$129
$239
Monthly Total
$1,385
$4,520
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,620
$54,240
Hourly Wage
$8.31
$27.12
ALICE IN MASON COUNTY
Mason County, 2013

Allyn CDP
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
806
18%
1,236
43%
Grapeview CDP
496
31%
Hoodsport CDP
359
52%
3,453
49%
Skokomish CDP
178
59%
Union CDP
259
29%
Belfair CDP
Shelton City

Town
53045
15%
23%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (45)
Job
Opportunities
poor (42)
Community
Resources
poor (52)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$524
$879
Child Care
$1,129
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$132
$397
Taxes
$139
$209
Monthly Total
$1,455
$4,367
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,460
$52,404
Hourly Wage
$8.73
$26.20

report income.
321
Household Survival Budget, Mason County
ALICE IN OKANOGAN COUNTY
Okanogan County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Brewster City
620
55%
Coulee Dam Town
522
24%
Elmer City Town
119
23%
Malott CDP
201
37%
North Omak CDP
243
46%
Okanogan City
1,041
46%
Omak City
1,871
47%
Oroville City
818
53%
Pateros City
216
37%
Riverside Town
218
51%
Tonasket City
611
67%
Twisp Town
522
55%
Winthrop Town
212
40%
Town


53047
20%
21%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (52)
Job
Opportunities
fair (49)
Community
Resources
fair (56)

Household Survival Budget, Okanogan County

report income.
322
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$488
$679
Child Care
$1,019
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$128
$358
Taxes
$132
$124
Monthly Total
$1,408
$3,933
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,896
$47,196
Hourly Wage
$8.45
$23.60
ALICE IN PACIFIC COUNTY
Pacific County, 2013


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Chinook CDP
102
73%
Ilwaco City
488
43%
Long Beach City
806
52%
Naselle CDP
176
32%
Ocean Park CDP
612
52%
1,135
46%
758
50%
Town
Raymond City
South Bend City
53049
16%
27%
57%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (51)
Job
Opportunities
poor (45)
Community
Resources
good (62)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$445
$748
Child Care
$1,096
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$123
$376
Taxes
$124
$164
Monthly Total
$1,352
$4,137
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,224
$49,644
Hourly Wage
$8.11
$24.82

report income.
323
Household Survival Budget, Pacific County
ALICE IN PEND OREILLE COUNTY
Pend Oreille County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Ione Town
153
36%
Metaline Falls Town
146
50%
Newport City
842
46%
Town


53051
21%
20%
59%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (53)
Job
Opportunities
poor (39)
Community
Resources
good (62)

Household Survival Budget, Pend Oreille County

report income.
324
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$409
$687
Child Care
$1,239
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$118
$387
Taxes
$116
$186
Monthly Total
$1,303
$4,252
ANNUAL TOTAL
$15,636
$51,024
Hourly Wage
$7.82
$25.51
ALICE IN PIERCE COUNTY

53053
12%
22%
66%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (33)
Job
Opportunities
good (55)
Community
Resources
fair (53)

Household Survival Budget, Pierce County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$608
$964
Child Care
$1,309
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$322
$643
Health Care
$114
$456
Miscellaneous
$138
$421
Taxes
$149
$261
Monthly Total
$1,522
$4,633
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,264
$55,596
Hourly Wage
$9.13
$27.80
PIERCE COUNTY

report income.
325

ALICE IN PIERCE COUNTY

PIERCE COUNTY

Pierce County, 2013

Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,050
31%
Rosedale CDP
488
41%
Roy City
1,224
27%
223
4,488
18%
32%
Ruston Town
364
217
21%
65%
South Creek CDP
843
Bonney Lake City
24%
6,135
19%
South Hill CDP
18,068
Browns Point CDP
23%
553
16%
South Prairie Town
180
42%
Buckley City
1,442
29%
Spanaway CDP
9,440
34%
Canterwood CDP
1,282
12%
Stansberry Lake CDP
749
25%
Carbonado Town
210
28%
Steilacoom Town
2,473
30%
Clear Lake CDP
330
34%
Summit CDP
3,368
25%
2,686
35%
Summit View CDP
2,572
34%
Crocker CDP
407
20%
Sumner City
3,813
38%
Dash Point CDP
359
17%
Tacoma City
81,498
41%
Dupont City
2,973
14%
University Place City
12,665
38%
Eatonville Town
1,022
31%
Vaughn CDP
264
36%
Edgewood City
3,821
26%
Waller CDP
3,080
30%
Elk Plain CDP
4,769
23%
Wauna CDP
1,637
22%
Fife City
3,636
37%
Wilkeson Town
159
30%
653
15%
Wollochet CDP
2,645
21%
Fircrest City
2,689
27%
Fort Lewis CDP
2,920
51%
Fox Island CDP
1,394
13%
Frederickson CDP
6,196
21%
Gig Harbor City
3,352
28%
Graham CDP
8,309
20%
571
35%
Key Center CDP
1,462
27%
Lake Tapps CDP
4,104
13%
Lakewood City
24,204
47%
Longbranch CDP
1,425
39%
Maplewood CDP
1,955
19%
McChord AFB CDP
755
53%
McKenna CDP
225
40%
McMillin CDP
573
13%
Midland CDP
3,326
50%
Milton City
2,986
27%
Nisqually Indian
Community CDP
174
30%
North Fort Lewis CDP
457
31%
North Puyallup CDP
916
37%
Orting City
2,243
23%
Parkland CDP
13,224
44%
Prairie Heights CDP
1,533
23%
Prairie Ridge CDP
3,957
26%
580
29%
14,837
29%
179
15%
Town
Alderton CDP
Anderson Island CDP
Artondale CDP
Ashford CDP
Clover Creek CDP
Fife Heights CDP
Home CDP
Purdy CDP
Puyallup City
Raft Island CDP
326
Pierce County, 2013

Town
ALICE IN SAN JUAN COUNTY
San Juan County, 2013

Town
Friday Harbor Town
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,110
42%

53055
11%
22%
67%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (42)
Job
Opportunities
fair (50)
Community
Resources
good (68)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$731
$938
Child Care
$1,395
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$158
$438
Taxes
$186
$298
Monthly Total
$1,735
$4,822
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,820
$57,864
Hourly Wage
$10.41
$28.93

report income.
327
Household Survival Budget, San Juan County
ALICE IN SKAGIT COUNTY
Skagit County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Anacortes City
6,795
32%
Bay View CDP
280
16%
Big Lake CDP
746
30%
Burlington City
3,264
46%
Clear Lake CDP
462
21%
Concrete Town
307
54%
Hamilton Town
117
56%
La Conner Town
392
49%
Lake Cavanaugh CDP
107
45%
Town
Lyman Town
205
40%
Mount Vernon City
11,102
45%
Sedro-Woolley City
4,089
41%


53057
14%
23%
63%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (29)
Job
Opportunities
good (54)
Community
Resources
good (63)

Household Survival Budget, Skagit County

report income.
328
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$601
$899
Child Care
$1,359
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$142
$429
Taxes
$155
$277
Monthly Total
$1,558
$4,717
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,696
$56,604
Hourly Wage
$9.35
$28.30
ALICE IN SKAMANIA COUNTY
Skamania County, 2013

Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Carson CDP
897
44%
North Bonneville City
483
39%
Stevenson City
577
46%
Town

53059
15%
19%
66%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

good (58)
Job
Opportunities
poor (43)
Community
Resources
good (60)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$659
$912
Child Care
$1,192
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$149
$409
Taxes
$167
$235
Monthly Total
$1,635
$4,501
ANNUAL TOTAL
$19,620
$54,012
Hourly Wage
$9.81
$27.01

report income.
329
Household Survival Budget, Skamania County
SNOHOMISH COUNTY

report income.
330
ALICE IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY


53061
11%
22%
67%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (29)
Job
Opportunities
good (60)
Community
Resources
fair (57)

Household Survival Budget, Snohomish County

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$758
$1,104
Child Care
$1,516
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$322
$643
Health Care
$114
$456
Miscellaneous
$157
$465
Taxes
$184
$356
Monthly Total
$1,726
$5,119
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,712
$61,428
Hourly Wage
$10.36
$30.71
ALICE IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Snohomish County, 2013
Snohomish County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Alderwood Manor CDP
3,164
29%
North Lynnwood CDP
Arlington City
6,716
38%
North Sultan CDP
917
30%
Bothell City
13,650
Bothell East CDP
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
6,633
35%
105
33%
Picnic Point CDP
3,231
20%
32%
Silver Firs CDP
7,104
14%
2,964
20%
Sisco Heights CDP
1,028
19%
Bothell West CDP
6,245
21%
Snohomish City
3,646
44%
Brier City
2,137
14%
Stanwood City
2,409
41%
666
20%
Startup CDP
299
44%
Bunk Foss CDP
1,173
19%
Sultan City
1,649
35%
Canyon Creek CDP
1,125
38%
Sunday Lake CDP
260
9%
Cathcart CDP
897
16%
Swede Heaven CDP
346
39%
Cavalero CDP
1,639
11%
Three Lakes CDP
1,116
19%
Chain Lake CDP
1,306
18%
Warm Beach CDP
897
24%
Clearview CDP
1,264
15%
Woods Creek CDP
1,922
13%
590
59%
Woodway City
431
12%
Eastmont CDP
6,930
17%
Edmonds City
17,705
32%
Esperance CDP
1,452
30%
Everett City
41,413
48%
Fobes Hill CDP
937
30%
Gold Bar City
823
42%
Granite Falls City
1,351
35%
High Bridge CDP
1,010
16%
Kayak Point CDP
549
9%
Lake Bosworth CDP
221
29%
Lake Cassidy CDP
1,102
24%
Lake Goodwin CDP
1,364
29%
Lake Ketchum CDP
328
38%
Lake Roesiger CDP
301
29%
Lake Stevens City
10,104
30%
Lake Stickney CDP
2,721
46%
Larch Way CDP
1,160
22%
Lochsloy CDP
972
15%
Lynnwood City
13,580
47%
379
22%
Maltby CDP
3,642
16%
Martha Lake CDP
5,474
26%
Marysville City
21,755
36%
May Creek CDP
302
23%
Meadowdale CDP
986
31%
Mill Creek City
7,637
21%
Mill Creek East CDP
5,661
15%
Monroe City
5,091
30%
Town
Arlington Heights CDP
Bryant CDP
Darrington Town
Machias CDP
Monroe North CDP
550
5%
Mountlake Terrace City
8,051
35%
Mukilteo City
8,129
22%
Town
SNOHOMISH COUNTY

331
ALICE IN SPOKANE COUNTY
Spokane County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Airway Heights City
1,383
54%
Cheney City
3,844
62%
Country Homes CDP
1,872
39%
Deer Park City
1,353
61%
Fairchild AFB CDP
757
46%
Fairfield Town
203
43%
Fairwood CDP
2,996
29%
Four Lakes CDP
128
70%
Green Bluff CDP
318
9%
Liberty Lake City
2,859
23%
Mead CDP
2,804
30%
Medical Lake City
1,516
34%
Town
Millwood City
753
35%
2,275
28%
Rockford Town
184
30%
Spangle City
103
49%
Spokane City
86,332
45%
Spokane Valley City
37,107
37%
Town and Country CDP
2,071
29%
Otis Orchards-East
Farms CDP


53063
16%
21%
63%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (44)
Job
Opportunities
fair (51)
Community
Resources
fair (56)

Household Survival Budget, Spokane County

report income.
332
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$470
$778
Child Care
$1,192
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$126
$392
Taxes
$129
$198
Monthly Total
$1,385
$4,313
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,620
$51,756
Hourly Wage
$8.31
$25.88
ALICE IN STEVENS COUNTY
Stevens County, 2013


Town
Chewelah City
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,235
52%
Clayton CDP
163
59%
Colville City
2,180
47%
Kettle Falls City
724
45%
Loon Lake CDP
350
25%
Northport Town
176
56%
53065
16%
18%
66%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (55)
Job
Opportunities
fair (50)
Community
Resources
good (62)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$487
$664
Child Care
$1,084
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$128
$364
Taxes
$132
$138
Monthly Total
$1,407
$4,003
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,884
$48,036
Hourly Wage
$8.44
$24.02

report income.
333
Household Survival Budget, Stevens County
ALICE IN THURSTON COUNTY
Thurston County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bucoda Town
216
47%
Grand Mound CDP
920
33%
Lacey City
16,742
33%
North Yelm CDP
1,155
42%
Olympia City
20,377
41%
Rainier City
684
25%
Rochester CDP
701
33%
2,069
40%
752
44%
Tumwater City
7,762
33%
Yelm City
2,373
41%
Town
Tanglewilde CDP
Tenino City


53067
12%
23%
65%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (32)
Job
Opportunities
good (56)
Community
Resources
poor (51)

Household Survival Budget, Thurston County

report income.
334
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$721
$963
Child Care
$1,267
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$156
$425
Taxes
$183
$270
Monthly Total
$1,720
$4,678
ANNUAL TOTAL
$20,640
$56,136
Hourly Wage
$10.32
$28.07
ALICE IN WAHKIAKUM COUNTY
Wahkiakum County, 2013


Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Cathlamet Town
255
40%
East Cathlamet CDP
186
35%
Grays River CDP
182
53%
Puget Island CDP
352
40%
Rosburg CDP
178
33%
Skamokawa Valley CDP
142
56%
Town
53069
20%
18%
62%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (54)
Job
Opportunities
poor (46)
Community
Resources
poor (52)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$455
$698
Child Care
$1,395
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$124
$408
Taxes
$126
$232
Monthly Total
$1,365
$4,486
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,380
$53,832
Hourly Wage
$8.19
$26.92

report income.
335
Household Survival Budget, Wahkiakum County
ALICE IN WALLA WALLA COUNTY
Walla Walla County, 2013
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Burbank CDP
1,140
26%
College Place City
3,479
52%
Dixie CDP
101
48%
Garrett CDP
548
45%
Prescott City
131
47%
Touchet CDP
125
49%
Waitsburg City
448
40%
Walla Walla City
10,916
51%
611
27%
Town
Walla Walla East CDP


53071
17%
55%
28%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (45)
Job
Opportunities
fair (50)
Community
Resources
fair (58)

Household Survival Budget, Walla Walla County

report income.
336
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$496
$760
Child Care
$1,252
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$129
$398
Taxes
$134
$210
Monthly Total
$1,419
$4,373
ANNUAL TOTAL
$17,028
$52,476
Hourly Wage
$8.51
$26.24
ALICE IN WHATCOM COUNTY
Whatcom County, 2013


53073
% ALICE
&
Poverty
Bellingham City
34,018
49%
Birch Bay CDP
3,541
41%
Blaine City
2,130
38%
Custer CDP
247
40%
Deming CDP
103
59%
Everson City
875
45%
Ferndale City
4,355
37%
Geneva CDP
882
16%
Lynden City
4,749
34%
155
58%
1,625
57%
416
28%
1,432
55%
Point Roberts CDP
652
46%
Sudden Valley CDP
2,645
21%
422
39%
Maple Falls CDP
18%
24%
58%
Total HH
Town
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Marietta-Alderwood CDP
Nooksack City
Peaceful Valley CDP
Sumas City

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (30)
Job
Opportunities
fair (50)
Community
Resources
fair (55)

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$583
$902
Child Care
$1,419
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$139
$437
Taxes
$151
$295
Monthly Total
$1,533
$4,806
ANNUAL TOTAL
$18,396
$57,672
Hourly Wage
$9.20
$28.84

report income.
337
Household Survival Budget, Whatcom County
ALICE IN WHITMAN COUNTY
Whitman County, 2013

Town
Albion Town
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
252
36%
1,243
39%
Colton Town
145
17%
Endicott Town
117
48%
Garfield Town
239
38%
Lacrosse Town
147
55%
Oakesdale Town
170
26%
Palouse City
408
30%
Pullman City
10,560
63%
Rosalia Town
249
46%
St. John Town
301
50%
Tekoa City
270
49%
Uniontown Town
168
26%
Colfax City


53075
31%
48%
21%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT

W

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

poor (34)
Job
Opportunities
poor (38)
Community
Resources
good (62)

Household Survival Budget, Whitman County

report income.
338
SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$473
$749
Child Care
$1,150
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$126
$383
Taxes
$129
$179
Monthly Total
$1,388
$4,214
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,656
$50,568
Hourly Wage
$8.33
$25.28
ALICE IN YAKIMA COUNTY
Yakima County, 2013


53077
19%
53%
28%
Poverty
ALICE
Above AT
Community
Resources
poor (48)
Total HH
% ALICE
&
Poverty
1,345
42%
Buena CDP
266
87%
Cowiche CDP
101
83%
Eschbach CDP
114
55%
Gleed CDP
1,046
27%
Grandview City
2,996
52%
Granger City
738
59%
Harrah Town
177
40%
Mabton City
510
55%
Moxee City
996
28%
Naches Town
378
56%
2,610
44%
436
29%
4,369
60%
112
67%
2,681
30%
340
59%
Toppenish City
2,286
67%
Union Gap City
1,880
51%
Wapato City
1,259
67%
181
52%
Yakima City
32,560
52%
Zillah City
1,050
32%
Selah City
Summitview CDP
Sunnyside City
Terrace Heights CDP

Job
Opportunities
fair (53)
Ahtanum CDP
Tampico CDP

to 100 (best).

Housing
Affordability

fair (45)
Town
Tieton City
White Swan CDP

SINGLE ADULT
2 ADULTS, 1 INFANT,
1 PRESCHOOLER
Housing
$446
$700
Child Care
$1,010
Food
$191
$579
Transportation
$350
$700
Health Care
$119
$474
Miscellaneous
$123
$359
Taxes
$124
$127
Monthly Total
$1,353
$3,949
ANNUAL TOTAL
$16,236
$47,388
Hourly Wage
$8.12
$23.69

report income.
339
Household Survival Budget, Yakima County
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AAA, Your Driving Costs, 2013
http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/YourDrivingCosts2013.pdf
AARP Public Policy Institute, Caregiving in the U.S. 2015, National Alliance for Caregiving, June 2015.
http://www.caregiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2015_CaregivingintheUS_Final-Report-June-4_WEB.pdf
Abel, Jaison, Richard Deitz and Yaqin Su, Are Recent College Graduates Finding Good Jobs? Current Issues
in Economics and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2014, Vol. 20, No. 1.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci20-1.pdf
ADP Research Institute, Planning For Health Care Reform: How Income Impacts Employee Health Benefits
Participation, 2014. http://www.adp.com/~/media/RI/pdf/Benefits%20Planning%20For%20Health%20Care%20
Reform%20How%20Income%20Impacts%20Employee%20Health%20Benefits%20Participation%20White%20
Paper.ashx
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(AHRQ), 2014 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities
Report, AHRQ Pub. No. 15-0007, May 2015.
http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqdr14/2014nhqdr.pdf
Ahmad, Farah Z., and Christian E. Weller, Reading Between the Data: The Incomplete Story of Asian
Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, Center for American Progress, March 2014.
Allegretto, Sylvia, Basic Family Budgets: Working families incomes often fail to meet living expenses around
the U.S., Briefing Paper, Economic Policy Institute, 2005.
http://www.earncentral.org/members/minwage/documents/epi-familybudgets.pdf
Allegretto, Sylvia, Marc Doussard, Dave Graham-Squire, Ken Jacobs, Dan Thompson and Jeremy Thompson,
Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost Of Low-Wage Jobs in The Fast-Food Industry, UC Berkeley
Labor Center, October 2013. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2013/fast_food_poverty_wages.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE), Saving Futures, Saving Dollars: The Impact of Education on Crime
Reduction and Earnings, Issue Brief, September 2013.
http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SavingFutures.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE), The Economic Benefits of Increasing the High School Graduation Rate
for Public School Students in the United States, Issue Brief, October 2013.
http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/US_econ.pdf
Altig, Dave and John Robertson, The Skills Gap: Still Trying to Separate Myth from Fact, Federal Reserve
Bank of Atlanta, June 7, 2012. Retrieved May 20, 2014.
http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2012/06/the-skills-gap-still-trying-to-separate-myth-from-fact.html
American Community Survey (ACS), 2007, 2010 and 2012; 1-, 3-, and 5-year estimates, U.S. Census Bureau,
2007, 2010 and 2012. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
American Community Survey (ACS), 1-Year Estimates 2013, Geographies: All States within United States,
Table S2301: Employment Status, U.S. Census Bureau, 2013b.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
American Community Survey (ACS), 1-Year Estimates 2013, Geographies: All States within United States, Table
B20017: Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months by Sex by Work Experience in the Past 12 Months for the
Population 16 Years and Over with Earnings in the Past 12 Months, U.S. Census Bureau, 2013.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_
B20017&prodType=table
340
Table DP04: Selected Housing Characteristics, U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/
tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_DP04&prodType=table
Table S1401: School Enrollment, U.S. Census Bureau, 2013c.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Americas Infrastructure Report Card, 2013.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/home
Anderson, Michael H., and Sanjiv Jaggia, Rent-to-own Agreements: Customer Characteristics and Contract
Outcomes, Journal of Economics and Business, January 2008.
https://www.rtohq.org/pdfs/Rent-to-own%20agreements-CustomerCharacteristicsandContractOutcomes.pdf
Anderson, Monica, 6 Facts about Americans and their Smartphones, Pew Research Center, April 1, 2015.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/01/6-facts-about-americans-and-their-smartphones/
Annie E. Casey Foundation, Teens ages 16 to 19 not attending school and not working, Kids Count Data
Center, accessed 11/21/15. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/5062-teens-ages-16-to-19-not-attendingschool-and-not-working?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/869,36,868,867,133/any/11482,11483
Association of Progressive Rental Organizations (APRO), Rent-to-Owns State Economic Impact and Statutes,
accessed 9/22/15. https://www.rtohq.org/state-associations/state-economic-impact-and-statutes/
Autor, David, The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor Market: Implications for Employment and
Earnings, Center for American Progress and the Hamilton Project, 2010. http://economics.mit.edu/files/5554
Baicker, Katherine and Amy Finkelstein, The Effects of Medicaid Coverage - Learning from the Oregon
Experiment, New England Journal of Medicine, August 2011.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1108222
Baker, Dean, Whos Dreaming? Homeownership Among Low Income Families. Center for Economic and
Policy Research, 2005. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2005_01.pdf
Baker, Dean, and Simone Baribeau, Homeownership in a Bubble: The Fast Path to Poverty? Center for
Economic and Policy Research, August 2003.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/housing_2003_08.pdf
Barr, Michael S., and Rebecca M. Blank, Access to Financial Services, Savings, and Assets Among the Poor,
National Poverty Center, University of Michigan, November 2008.
http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief13/PolicyBrief13.pdf
Baum, Sandy, Jennifer Ma, and Kathleen Payea, Education Pays: The Benefits of Higher Education for
Individuals and Society, The College Board, 2013.
https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/education-pays-2013-full-report.pdf
BBC Research and Consulting, Idaho County-level Demographic and Housing Data Sheets: IHFA 2014 Needs
Assessment, Idaho Fair Housing Forum, 2014.
http://fairhousingforum.org/wp-content/uploads/Idaho-County-Demographic-and-Housing-Data-V2-PDF1.pdf
Belsky, Eric S., Jack Goodman, and Rachel Drew, Measuring the Nations Rental Housing Affordability
Problems, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, June 2015.
341
Banerjee, Sudipto, Utilization Patterns and Out-of-Pocket Expenses for Different Health Care Services Among
American Retirees, Employee Benefit Research Institute, Issue Brief No. 411, February 2015.
http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_411_Feb15_HlthExpds.pdf
Ben-Shalom, Yonatan , Robert A. Moffitt, and John Karl Scholz, An Assessment of the Effectiveness of AntiPoverty Programs in the United States, Prepared for the 2012 Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Poverty,
Chapter 22. A version of this study is available at: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp139211.pdf
Bercovitz, Anita, Abigail Moss, Eunice Park-Lee, Adrienne Jones, Lauren Harris-Kojetin, and Marie Squillace,
An Overview of Home Health Aides: United States, 2007, National Health Statistics Report, Number 34, May
2011. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr034.pdf
Berkowitz, Seth A., James B. Meigs, Darren DeWalt, Hillary K. Seligman, Lily S. Barnard, Oliver-John M. Bright,
Marie Schow, Steven J. Atlas, and Deborah J. Wexler, Material Need Insecurities, Control of Diabetes Mellitus,
and Use of Health Care Resources: Results of the Measuring Economic Insecurity in Diabetes Study, JAMA
Internal Medicine, 175(2), February 1, 2015, pp. 257-65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25545780
Bernanke, Ben S., Recent Developments in the Labor Market, at the National Association for Business
Economics Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., March 26, 2012.
Bernstein, Jared, Let the War on the Poverty Line Commence, Working Paper Series, The Foundation for
Child Development, New York, 2001.
http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/LetTheWarOnThePovertyLineCommence.pdf
Bertaud, Alain, Urban Planning and Housing Affordability, 10th Annual Demographia International Housing
Affordability Survey, 2013. http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
Blank, Rebecca M., Presidential Address: How to Improve Poverty Measurement in the United States,
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2008, pp. 233-254. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/
handle/2027.42/58071/20323_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=9C48A50AD7A23C8D6E293F7FBA9AA046?sequence=1
Bloom, David, David Canning and Gunther Fink, Implications of Population Aging for Economic Growth,
Program on the Global Demography of Aging Working Paper No. 64, Harvard University, January 2011.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/program-on-the-global-demography-of-aging/WorkingPapers/2011/PGDA_
WP_64.pdf
Boguslaw, Janet, Hannah Thomas, Laura Sullivan, Tatjana Meschede, Sara Chaganti, and Thomas Shapiro,
Hard Choices: Navigating the Economic Shock of Unemployment, Economic Mobility Project, The Pew
Charitable Trusts, April 2013. http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/2013/Hard_Choices.pdf
Bradbury, Bruce, Miles Corak, Jane Waldfogel, and Elizabeth Washbrook, Too Many Children Left Behind: The
U.S. Achievement Gap in Comparative Perspective, New York: Russell Sage, June 2015.
Brault, Matthew, Americans With Disabilities: 2010, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, July
2012. http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf
Bricker, Jesse, Arthur B. Kennickell, Kevin Moore, and John Sabelhaus, Changes in U.S. Family Finances from
2007 to 2010: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances, Federal Reserve Bulletin, June 2012, Vol. 98,
No. 2. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/pdf/scf12.pdf
Bricker, Jesse, Lisa J. Dettling, Alice Henriques, Joanne W. Hsu, Kevin B. Moore, John Sabelhaus, Jeffrey
Thompson, and Richard A. Windle, Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the
Survey of Consumer Finances, Federal Reserve Bulletin, September 2014, Vol 100, No 4.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf
Brookings, Characteristics of EITC-Eligible Tax Units in 2012 by State, 2012.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/eitc
Buerge, David, Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest: An Introduction, University of Washington, 1998.
https://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/buerge1.html
342
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States, 2013 Annual
Averages, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2013a.
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt13q4.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Education and training assignments by detailed occupation, U.S. Department
of Labor, 2012. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_112.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Employment Situation of Veterans 2014, U.S. Department of Labor, March
2015. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/vet.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population, Annual
Averages, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2012a.
http://www.bls.gov/lau/rdscnp16.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Health Care Spending: 1998, 2003, and 2008, Consumer Expenditure
Survey: 2008, U.S. Department of Labor, August 2010, Vol. 1, No. 8.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume1_number8/cex_1_8.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Household Data Annual Averages, table 39. Median weekly earnings of fulltime wage and salary workers by detailed occupation and sex, Current Population Survey, 2015a.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), May 2012 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Oregon,
2012a. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes_or.htm#00-0000
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Multiple Jobholding in States in 2012, U.S. Department of Labor, 2013c.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/multiple-jobholding-in-states-in-2012.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the United States,
March 2014, U.S. Department of Labor, Bulletin 2779, September 2014.
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2014/ebbl0055.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey, May 2007 and 2013,
2013b. http://www.bls.gov/oes/
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), States: Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population, 1976
to 2014 Annual Averages, 2015. http://www.bls.gov/lau/staadata.txt
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), States: Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population by
Sex, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, Marital Status, and Detailed Age, 2013 Annual Averages, Local Area
Unemployment Statistics, 2013. http://www.bls.gov/lau/#ex14
Campbell, David, What is Educations Impact on Civic and Social Engagement? Measuring the Effects of
Education on Health and Civic Engagement, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), 2006. http://www.oecd.org/edu/innovation-education/37425694.pdf
Campbell, John Y., Howell Edmunds Jackson, Brigitte C. Madrian, and Peter Tufano, Consumer financial
protection, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2011, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 91-114.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9887620/JEP_consumer_financial_protection_11.pdf?sequence=1
Capital City Development Corporation, Boise Downtown Housing Strategy, prepared by Leland Consulting
Group, May 2015. http://www.ccdcboise.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BoiseDowntownStrategy-FINAL.pdf
Carasso, Adam, and Signe-Mary McKernan, Portraits of the Assets and Liabilities of Low-Income Families,
Opportunity and Ownership Project, Urban Institute, May 2008, Vol.9.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411678_low-income_families.pdf
343
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers, Economic News
Release, First Quarter 2015. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm
Carnevale, Anthony, Ban Cheah, Andrew R. Hanson, The Economic Value of College Majors, State data
website, Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University, accessed July 24, 2015.
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/#full-report
Casey, Pamela M., Roger K. Warren, Fred L. Cheesman II, Jennifer K. Elek, Helping Courts Address Implicit
Bias: Resources for Education, National Center for State Courts, 2012.
http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Topics/Gender%20and%20Racial%20Fairness/IB_report_033012.ashx
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and
Health: Mental Health Findings, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, November 2012.
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k11MH_FindingsandDetTables/2K11MHFR/NSDUHmhfr2011.pdf
Center for Health Workforce Studies, Home Care Aides in Washington State: Current Supply and Future
Demand, Washington State University, January 2011.
http://depts.washington.edu/uwrhrc/uploads/Home_Care_Aides_Brief.pdf
Center for Labor Market Studies, Left behind in America: the Nations Dropout Crisis, Center for Labor Market
Studies Publications, Northeastern University, Paper 21, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20000598
Center for Labor Market Studies, The Fiscal Consequences of Dropping Out of School and Failing to Complete
Years of Post-Secondary Schooling in Connecticut, Northeastern University, 2009a.
http://www.opp.org/About/docs/dropout_crisis/FiscalImpactsPaperforCT.pdf
Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index, 2011.
http://htaindex.cnt.org/map/
Center for Responsible Lending, The Cost of Bad Lending, State Fact Sheets, August 2010.
http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/tools-resources/factsheets/
Center for Responsible Lending, The State of Lending in America and Its Impact on U.S. Households, 2014.
http://www.responsiblelending.org/state-of-lending/reports/SOL-full-5-12-14.pdf
Center for Responsible Lending, The State of Lending: Payday Loans, September 10, 2013.
http://www.responsiblelending.org/state-of-lending/reports/10-Payday-Loans.pdf
Center for Womens Welfare, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Oregon 2014, prepared for WorkSystems, Inc.,
University of Washington School of Social Work, 2014.
http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/docs/Oregon2014.pdf
Center for Womens Welfare, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Washington State, 2014, prepared for
Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County, University of Washington School of Social Work, 2014.
http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/docs/Washington2014.pdf
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Idaho Fact Sheet: Tax Credits Promote Work and Fight Poverty,
updated September 18, 2015. http://apps.cbpp.org/3-5-14tax/?state=ID
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Oregon Fact Sheet: Tax Credits Promote Work and Fight Poverty,
updated September 18, 2015. http://apps.cbpp.org/3-5-14tax/?state=OR
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington Fact Sheet: Tax Credits Promote Work and Fight Poverty,
updated September 18, 2015. http://apps.cbpp.org/3-5-14tax/?state=WA
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Health Disparities and Inequalities Report, United States,
2011, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, January 14, 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6001.pdf
344
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Risk Factors and Health Indicators from the Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2001 to 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2014. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/sortablestats/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2013.
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/downloads/State-Indicator-Report-Fruits-Vegetables-2013.pdf
Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez, and Nicholas Turner, Is the United States Still
a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility, National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER), Working Paper No. 19844, January 2014. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19844
Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, and Emmanuel Saez, Where is the Land of Opportunity? The
Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States, The Equality of Opportunity Project, Harvard
University, June 2014, Table III. http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/images/mobility_geo.pdf
Child Care Aware, Child Care in the State of Idaho, 2015.
http://usa.childcareaware.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2015-State-Fact-Sheets-Idaho.pdf
Childhood Trends, Research-Based Responses to Key Questions about the 2010 Head Start Impact Study,
Early Childhood Highlights, 2011, Vol. 2, Issue 1.
http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2011_01_28_ECHH_2010HSStudy.pdf
Choi, Laura, Financial Stress and Its Physical Effects on Individuals and Communities, Community
Development Investment Review, December 2009. http://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/choi.pdf
Clabaugh, Jeff, Heres What the Latest Foreclosure and Delinquency Numbers Show for Greater Washington,
April 14, 2015. http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/breaking_ground/2015/04/heres-what-the-latestforeclosure-and-delinquency.html
Clawson, Dan, and Naomi Gerstel, Unequal Time: Gender, Class and Family in Employment Schedules, New
York: Russell Sage, April 2014.
Cohen, Robin A., Whitney K. Kirzinger, and Renee M. Gindi, Strategies Used by Adults to Reduce Their
Prescription Drug Costs, National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief, No. 119, April 2013.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db119.pdf
Commonwealth Fund, Idaho Low-Income Population Scorecard, 2015.
http://datacenter.commonwealthfund.org/scorecard/low-income/14/idaho/
Commonwealth Fund, Oregon Low-Income Population Scorecard, 2015.
http://datacenter.commonwealthfund.org/scorecard/low-income/39/oregon/
Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
accessed 11/21/2015. http://www.idahocommunityaction.org/programs/programsenergyassistance/
Compean, Mario, African Americans in the Columbia River Basin - Historical Overview, Washington State
University. http://archive.vancouver.wsu.edu/crbeha/aa/aa1.htm
Cooper, Daniel H., Byron F. Lutz, and Michael G. Palumbo, The Role of Taxes in Mitigating Income Inequality
Across the U.S. States, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Board, June 17, 2015.
http://byron.marginalq.com/cooper_lutz_palumbo_2015.pdf
CoreLogic, National Foreclosure Report, April 2013.
http://www.corelogic.com/research/foreclosure-report/national-foreclosure-report-april-2013.pdf
Corporation for Enterprise Development, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard, 2012.
http://assetsandopportunity.org/scorecard/state_data/
345
Commonwealth Fund, Washington Low-Income Population Scorecard, 2015.

http://datacenter.commonwealthfund.org/scorecard/low-income/49/washington/
Corporation for Enterprise Development, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard, 2014.

http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/2012/measure/asset-poverty-rate
Cramer, Reid, Trends in Savings, Debt, and Net Worth: Testimony to FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic
Inclusion (ComE-IN), New America Foundation, December 13, 2012.
https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/8991-fdic-is-focusing-on-saving-and-financial-inclusion/
CramerFDIC1.3.13.a91df04065274d9f8e5c50910114f0c0.pdf
Cramer, Reid, Rourke OBrien, Daniel Cooper, and Maria Luengo-Prado, A Penny Saved is Mobility Earned:
Advancing Economic Mobility Through Savings, The Pew Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project,
November 2009. http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2009/empsavingsreportpdf.pdf
Culhane, Dennis P., Jung Min Park, and Stephen Metraux, The Patterns and Costs of Services Use among
Homeless Families, Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 2011, pp. 815825. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20473
Cunningham, Alisa, and Gregory Kienzl, Delinquency: The Untold Truth of Student Loan Borrowing, Institute
for Higher Education Policy, 2011.
http://www.usafunds.org/USAFunds%20ResourceLibrary/DelinquencyTheUntoldTruth.pdf
Currie, Janet, and Erdal Tekin, Is There a Link Between Foreclosure And Health? NBER Working Paper
Series, August 2011. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17310.pdf
Davis, George C., and Wen You, The Thrifty Food Plan Is Not Thrifty When Labor Cost Is Considered, Journal
of Nutrition, April 2010, Vol. 140, No. 4, pp. 854-857. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/140/4/854.full
Day, Jennifer Cheeseman, and Hyon B. Shin, How Does Ability To Speak English Affect Earnings?, Population
Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Philadelphia,
PA, March 31 - April 2, 2005. https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/PAA_2005_
AbilityandEarnings.pdf
Dean, Stacy, and Dottie Rosenbaum, SNAP Benefits Will Be Cut for Nearly All Participants In November 2013,
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 2013.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/snap-benefits-will-be-cut-for-nearly-all-participants-in-november-2013
Demarco, Jerry, NJ Mortgage Default Rate Third-Highest In U.S., Cliffview Pilot, August 24, 2011.
http://www.cliffviewpilot.com/beyond/2705-nj-mortgage-default-rate-third-highest-in-us
DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette Proctor, and Jessica Smith, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance
Coverage in the United States: 2010, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, September 2011.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
dePlace, Eric, The Northwests Black Residents, Sightline Institute, February 16, 2012.
http://www.sightline.org/2012/02/16/the-northwests-black-residents/
Dowd, Tim, and John Horowitz, Income Mobility and the Earned Income Tax Credit: Short-Term Safety Net
or Long-Term Income Support, Public Finance Review, September 2011. https://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/
DepartmentalContent/MillerCollegeofBusiness/Econ/research/FacultyPapers/horowitz2011pfr.pdf
Dube, Arindrajit and Ken Jacobs, Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs: Use Of Safety Net Programs by Wal-Mart
Workers In California, UC Berkeley Labor Center, August 2004.
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2004/walmart.pdf
Eberts, Randall W., U.S. Employment Outlook for 2013, International Labor Brief 11(2), February 2013, pp.
4-14. http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=perarticles
Economic Policy Institute, Family Budget Calculator, 2013. Retrieved May 22, 2014.
http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/
346
Economic Policy Institute, What Families Need to Get By: The 2013 Update of EPIs Family Budget Calculator,
EPI Issue Brief #368, 2013. http://s4.epi.org/files/2013/ib368-basic-family-budgets.pdf
Economic Security Index, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University.
http://economicsecurityindex.org
ECONorthwest, Economics of the Achievement Gap: Oregon and the Portland Area, prepared for the
Chalkboard Project, March 2015.
http://media.oregonlive.com/education_impact/other/Acheivement%20Gap%20Impacts.pdf
Edelman, Sarah, Michela Zonta, and Julia Gordon, Lease Purchase Failed Before Can It Work Now? Center
for American Progress, 2015. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/housing/report/2015/04/29/112014/
lease-purchase-failed-before-can-it-work-now/
Edwards, Ashley N., Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Poverty, 20092011, Household Economic Studies,
U.S. Census, January 2014. http://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p70-137.pdf
Ellis, Dana, Ari Houser, and Joseph F. Coughlin. An Exploratory Study of Caregiver Stress, Fatigue & Worry in
the United States, MIT AgeLab, Issue Brief No 2014-5, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2014.
http://agelab.mit.edu/files/Exploratory_Study_of_Caregiver_Stress_Fatigue_Worry.pdf
Evans, Gary W., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Pamela K. Klebanov, Stressing Out the Poor: Chronic
Physiological Stress and the Income-Achievement Gap, Pathways, Winter 2011, p.16.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/pathways/winter_2011/PathwaysWinter11.pdf
Faberman, R. Jason, and Taft Foster, Unemployment Among Recent Veterans During the Great Recession,
Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, First Quarter, 2013, Vol. 37.
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/economic-perspectives/2013/1q-faberman-foster
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Addendum to the 2011 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and
Underbanked Households: Uses of Alternative Services, June 2013.
http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2013_AFSAddendum_web.pdf
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked
Households, October 2014. https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2013report.pdf
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked
Households, 2011. http://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/Full_Report.pdf
Federal Reserve, Mortgage Delinquencies and Foreclosures, A Speech by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 5, 2008.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20080505a.htm
Federal Reserve, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2013, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, July 2014.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/2013-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201407.pdf
Federal Reserve, Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2014, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, July 2015.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/2014-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201505.pdf
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Total Gross Domestic Product for Idaho, Economic Research, 2014.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IDNGSP
347
Federal Reserve, Insights into the Financial Experiences of Older Adults: A Forum Briefing Paper, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 2013.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/conferences/older-adults-forum-paper-20130717.pdf
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Total Gross Domestic Product for Oregon, Economic Research, 2014.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ORNGSP
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Total Gross Domestic Product for Washington, Economic Research, 2014.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WANGSP
Feeding America, Hunger in America 2014: National Report, August 2014. http://help.feedingamerica.
org/HungerInAmerica/hunger-in-america-2014-full-report.pdf?s_src=W159ORGSC&s_referrer=google&s_
subsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.feedingamerica.org%2Fhunger-in-america%2Four-research%2Fhunger-inamerica%2F&_ga=1.262221956.923247403.1443634216
Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap, March 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2014.
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/map-the-meal-gap.aspx#
Feeding America, 2013 Overall Food Insecurity, Data by County in Each State, 2013.
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/map-the-meal-gap/data-by-county-in-each-state.html
File, Thom, Who Votes? Congressional Elections and the American Electorate: 19782014, Population
Characteristics, P20-577, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, July 2015.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577.pdf
Finkelstein, Amy, Nathaniel Hendren, and Erzo F.P. Luttmer, The Value of Medicaid: Interpreting Results from
the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
June 2015. http://economics.mit.edu/files/10580
Fisher, Lynn M., Henry Pollakowski, and Jeffrey E. Zabel, Amenity-Based Housing Affordability Indexes,
Real Estate Economics, Winter 2009, Vol. 37, Issue 4, pp. 705-746.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Zabel2/publication/46537574_Amenity-Based_Housing_
Affordability_Indexes/links/09e41511abe0a23ba9000000.pdf
Flores, G. Michael, Serving Consumers Needs for Loans in the 21st Century, Bretton Woods, Inc., June
2012. http://www.mynafsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Bretton%20Woods%20Study%20Serving%20
Consumers%20Needs%20June%202012.pdf
Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity,
accessed 10/16/15.
http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-income-people-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/
Food Research and Action Center(FRAC), Replacing the Thrifty Food Plan in Order to Provide Adequate
Allotments for SNAP Beneficiaries, December 2012. http://frac.org/pdf/thrifty_food_plan_2012.pdf
Frame, W. Scott, Estimating the Effect of Mortgage Foreclosures on Nearby Property Values: A Critical Review
of the Literature, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Economic Review, 2010, Volume 95, Number 3.
http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/others/region/foreclosure_resource_center/more_frame_externalities.pdf
Fruits, Eric, Forecast of Oregons Economy in 2013: Disappointing but not Disastrous, Center for Real Estate
Quarterly Report, Vol. 6, No. 4. Fall 2012.
https://www.pdx.edu/realestate/sites/www.pdx.edu.realestate/files/02%20Fruits%20-%20Oregon%20Forecast.pdf
Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, State of American Well-Being, 2013.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx?ref=interactive
Garfield, Rachel, Anthony Damico, Jessica Stephens, and Saman Rouhani, The Coverage Gap: Uninsured
Poor Adults in States that Do Not Expand Medicaid An Update, Kaiser Family Foundation, April 17, 2015.
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expandmedicaid-an-update/
348
Gibbons, Steve, The Costs of Urban Property Crime, The Economic Journal, 2004, Vol. 114, pp. 441-452.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00254.x/
Gladwell, Malcolm, Million-Dollar Murray: Why Problems Like Homelessness May Be Easier To Solve Than To
Manage, The New Yorker, February 13, 2006. http://gladwell.com/million-dollar-murray/
Glauber, Rebecca, Wanting More but Working Less: Involuntary Part-Time Employment and Economic
Vulnerability, Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire, Issue Brief No. 64, Summer 2013.
http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1198&context=carsey
Glover, Robert, Joel Miller and Stephanie Sadowski, Proceedings on the State Budget Crisis and Behavioral
Health Treatment Gap: The Impact on Public Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment Systems,
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, Washington, DC, March 22, 2012.
http://www.nasmhpd.org/docs/Summary-Congressional%20Briefing_March%2022_Website.pdf
Goldrick-Rab, Sara, Robert Kelchen, and Jason Houle, The Color of Student Debt: Implications of Federal
Loan Program Reforms for Black Students and Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Wisconsin
HOPE Lab, University of Wisconsin-Madison, September 2, 2014. https://news.education.wisc.edu/docs/
WebDispenser/news-connections-pdf/thecolorofstudentdebt-draft.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, Mark Hugo Lopez, Jeffrey S. Passel and Paul Taylor, The Path Not Taken: Two-thirds
of Legal Mexican Immigrants are not U.S. Citizens, Pew Research Center, February 2013.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/02/04/the-path-not-taken/
Grogger, Jeffrey,Welfare Transitions in the 1990s: the Economy, Welfare Policy, and the EITC, National
Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 9472, January 2003. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9472.pdf
Gundersen, Craig, Emily Engelhard, Amy Satoh, & Elaine Waxman, Map the Meal Gap 2014: Food Insecurity
and Child Food Insecurity Estimates at the County Level, Feeding America, 2014. http://www.feedingamerica.
org/hunger-in-america/our-research/map-the-meal-gap/2012/az_allcountiescfi_2012.pdf
Haas, Peter, Carrie Makarewicz, Albert Benedict, and Scott Bernstein, Estimating Transportation Costs
by Characteristics of Neighborhood and Household, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2008, No. 2077, pp. 62-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2077-09
Hacker, Jacob, Gregory Huber, Austin Nichols, Philipp Rehm and Stuart Craig, Economic Insecurity Across
the American States: New State Estimates from the Economic Security Index, Institution for Social and Policy
Studies, Yale University and the Rockefeller Foundation, June 2012.
http://economicsecurityindex.org/assets/state_reports/ESI_cross_state.pdf
Harrison, Jack, Jaime Grant and Jody Herman, A Gender Not Listed Here: Genderqueers, Gender Rebels, and
OtherWise in the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, LGBTQ Policy Journal at The Harvard Kennedy
School, 20112012, Vol. 2.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/gender_not_listed_here.pdf
Hartline-Grafton, Heather, Food Insecurity and Obesity: Understanding the Connections, Food Research and
Action Center, Spring 2011. http://frac.org/pdf/frac_brief_understanding_the_connections.pdf
Harvard Mental Health Letter, Mental Health Problems in the Workplace, Harvard Medical School, February
2010. Retrieved May 28, 2014. http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/
February/mental-health-problems-in-the-workplace
Haskins, Ron, Fighting Poverty the American Way, The Brookings Institution, June 2011.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/6/20%20fighting%20poverty%20haskins/0620_
fighting_poverty_haskins.pdf
349
Hanson, Kenneth, Mollie Orshanskys Strategy to Poverty Measurement as a Relationship between Household
Food Expenditures and Economy Food Plan, Review of Agricultural Economics, 2008, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 572
580. http://handle.nal.usda.gov/10113/20301
Hasse, John, John Reiser, and Alexander Pichacz, Evidence of Persistent Exclusionary Effects of Land Use
Policy within Historic and Projected Development Patterns in New Jersey: A Case Study of Monmouth and
Somerset Counties, Rowan University, 2011.
http://gis.rowan.edu/projects/exclusionary/exclusionary_zoning_final_draft_20110610.pdf
Hegewisch, Ariane, and Emily Ellis, The Gender Wage Gap by Occupation 2014 and by Race and Ethnicity,
Institute for Womens Policy Research, IWPR # C431, April 2015. Retrieved 7/20/2015.
http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-2014-and-by-race-and-ethnicity
Heisler, Michele, Kenneth Langa, Elizabeth Eby, A. Mark Fendrick, Mohammed Kabeto, and John Piette, The
Health Effects of Restricting Prescription Medication Use Because of Cost, Medical Care, 42(7), July 2004, pp.
626-34. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15213486
Helman, Ruth, Craig Copeland, and Jack VanDerhei, The 2015 Retirement Confidence Survey: Having a
Retirement Savings Plan a Key Factor in Americans Retirement Confidence, Employee Benefit Research
Institute, Issue Brief No. 413, April 2015. http://www.ebri.org/pdf/briefspdf/EBRI_IB_413_Apr15_RCS-2015.pdf
Hemphill, F. Cadelle, and Alan Vanneman, Achievement Gaps How Hispanic and White Students in Public
Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress Statistical
Analysis Report, NAEP Education Statistics Services Institute, June 2011.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdf
Henly, Julia R., H. Luke Shaefer, and Elaine Waxman, Nonstandard Work Schedules: Employer- and
Employee-Driven Flexibility in Retail Jobs, Social Service Review, 80, 2006, pp. 609- 634.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/508478
Hoefer, Michael, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan Baker, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population
Residing in the United States: January 2011, Population Estimates, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
March 2012. http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf
Hoopes Halpin, Stephanie, ALICE (Asset-Limited, Income-Constrained, Employed): A Study of Financial
Hardship in New Jersey, United Way of Northern New Jersey, 2012.
http://www.unitedwaynnj.org/documents/UWNNJ_ALICE%20Report_FINAL2012.pdf
Hounsell, Cindy, The Female Factor 2008: Why Women Are at Greater Financial Risk in Retirement and How
Annuities Can Help, Americans for Secure Retirement, 2008.
Human Development Index, The Measure of America 20132014, Social Science Research Council, 2014.
http://www.measureofamerica.org/human-development/
Hungerford, Thomas L., and Rebecca Thiess, The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit: History,
Purpose, Goals, and Effectiveness, Economic Policy Institute, September 25, 2013. http://www.epi.org/
publication/ib370-earned-income-tax-credit-and-the-child-tax-credit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/
Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security, State Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2013.
http://bhs.idaho.gov/Pages/Plans/Mitigation/SHMP.aspx
Idaho Department of Labor, Occupational & Industry Projections, accessed 9/22/15.
http://lmi.idaho.gov/projections
Idaho Food Bank, Hunger in Idaho, 2015. http://idahofoodbank.org/news-blog/food-insecurity-in-idaho/
Ihlanfeldt, Keith and Tom Mayock, Crime and Housing Prices, Department of Economics and DeVoe Moore
Center, Florida State University, February 2009.
http://coss.fsu.edu/dmc/sites/coss.fsu.edu.dmc/files/CrimeHousingPricesFEB25.pdf
350
Ihlanfeldt, Keith and Tom Mayock, Panel Data Estimates of the Effects of Different Types of Crime on Housing
Prices, Regional Science and Urban Economics, May 2010, Vol. 40, Issues 23, pp. 161172.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046210000086
Immigration Policy Center, New Americans in Idaho, January 1, 2015.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-americans-idaho
Immigration Policy Center, New Americans in Oregon, January 1, 2014, updated 2015.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-americans-oregon
Immigration Policy Center, New Americans in Washington, January 1, 2015.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-americans-washington
Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Human Needs Index: A Timely, Multidimensional View of
Poverty-related Need, Salvation Army, 2015.
http://humanneedsindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Final-Report.pdf
Institute of Medicine (IOM), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Examining the Evidence to Define
Benefit Adequacy, January 2013.
http://iom.nationalacademies.org/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2013/SNAP/SNAP_RB.pdf
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in
All 50 States, Fifth Edition, January 2015. http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf
Insurance Research Council, Uninsured Motorists, 2011 Edition, 2011.
http://www.insurance-research.org/sites/default/files/downloads/IRCUM2011_042111.pdf
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), data retrieved from the NCCS Data Web Report Builder, Statistics of Income
990EZc3 Report and 990 c3 Report, Urban Institute, 2007, 2010 and 2012.
Internal Revenue Service, Earned Income Credit (EIC), Publication 596, 2013.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p596--2013.pdf
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Earned Income Tax Credit for 2012; Do I Qualify? FS-2013-1, January 2013.
https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit-for-2012;-Do-I-Qualify%3F
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 1040: Individual Income Tax, Instructions, 2007, 2010 and 2012.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2012.pdf ; http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--2010.pdf ;
Internal Revenue Service, Statistics for 2012 Tax Returns with EITC, updated October 27, 2015.
http://www.eitc.irs.gov/EITC-Central/eitcstats/2012stats
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Guide 2012 for Individuals, Publication 17, Catalog Number 10311G,
2007, 2010 and 2012. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p17--2012.pdf; http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p17--2010.
pdf; http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p17--2007.pdf
Jaimovich, Nir, and Henry Siu, The Trend is the Cycle: Job Polarization and Jobless Recoveries, National
Bureau of Economic Research, August 14, 2012. http://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/annual/Jaimovich.pdf
Jiang, Yang, Mercedes Ekono, and Curtis Skinner, Basic Facts About Low-Income Children: Children under 18
Years, 2013, National Center for Children in Poverty, January 2015.
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_1100.pdf
John Hancock, John Hancock 2013 Cost of Care Survey, 2013.
http://www.sfpfinancial.com/files/16915/2013%20Cost%20of%20Care.pdf
Joint Center for Housing Studies, Americas Rental Housing: Evolving Markets and Needs, Harvard University,
2013. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs_americas_rental_housing_2013_1_0.pdf
351
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Tables, 2007, 2010 and 2012.
Jorgensen, Dale W., and Marcel P. Timmer, Structural Change in Advanced Nations: A New Set of Stylised
Facts, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 113(1), 129, 2011. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9442.2010.01637.x
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Oral Health and Low-Income Nonelderly Adults: A Review
of Coverage and Access, Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2012.
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7798-02.pdf
Kaiser Family Foundation, ADAP Financial Eligibility as a Percent of the Federal Poverty Level, June 2014.
http://kff.org/hivaids/state-indicator/adap-financial-eligibility-as-a-percent-of-the-federal-poverty-level/
Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Insurance Coverage of the Nonelderly (0-64) with Incomes up to 200%
Federal Poverty Level (FPL), 2014. http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/nonelderly-up-to-200-fpl/
Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator, 2015.
http://kff.org/wp-content/themes/vip/kff/static/subsidy-calculator-widget.html
Kaiser Family Foundation, Hospital Emergency Room Visits per 1,000 Population by Ownership Type, 2013.
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/emergency-room-visits/
Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, June 2012.
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/8322_hsw-may2012-update.pdf
Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts, 2012. http://kff.org/statedata/
Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, Employer Health Benefits 2011,
Annual Survey, September 2011. http://www.nahu.org/meetings/capitol/2012/attendees/jumpdrive/2011%20
Employee%20Benefits%20Survey%20by%20KFF.pdf
Kavoussi, Bonnie, Rich Americans Are Nearly Twice As Likely To Vote As The Poor, Huffington Post, April 17,
2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonnie-kavoussi/
Kendall, Anne, Christine M. Olson, and Edward A. Frongillo Jr., Relationship of Hunger and Food Insecurity
to Food Availability and Consumption, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1996, Vol. 96, No. 10, pp.
101924. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8841164
Kim, DaeHwan, and John Paul Leigh, Estimating the effects of wages on obesity, Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, May 2010, Vol. 52, No. 5, pp. 495-500. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20431413
Kingsley, G. Thomas., Robin Smith, and David Price, The Impacts of Foreclosures on Families and
Communities, Urban Institute, May 2009. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411909_impact_of_forclosures.pdf
Kneebone, Elizabeth, Job Sprawl Revisited: The Changing Geography of Metropolitan Employment, Metro
Economy Series for the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, April 2009. http://www.brookings.edu/~/
media/research/files/reports/2009/4/06%20job%20sprawl%20kneebone/20090406_jobsprawl_kneebone.pdf
Kneebone, Elizabeth, and Alan Berube, Confronting Suburban Poverty in America. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution Press, 2013. http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2013/confrontingsuburbanpovertyinamerica
Knudson, Becky, and Alexander Bettinardi, Estimated Economic Value of an Investment Program To Mitigate
Impacts Of A Major Seismic Event Using The Oregon Statewide Integrated Model, Oregon Department of
Transportation, 2013. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/Statewide/TRB_Paper_14_3017_revised.pdf
Kochhar, Rakesh, and Richard Fry, Wealth Inequality Has Widened along Racial, Ethnic Lines Since End of
Great Recession, FactTank, Pew Research Center, 2014.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/
Koskinen, John, Preliminary results from the 2015 filing season related to Affordable Care Act provisions,
Letter to Congress, July 17, 2015. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/CommissionerLetterlwithcharts.pdf
352
Kusisto, Laura, Rent-to-Own Homes Make a Comeback, Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2015.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rent-to-own-homes-make-a-comeback-1438108813
Lambert, Susan J., Passing the Buck: Labor Flexibility Practices that Transfer Risk onto Hourly Workers,
Human Relations, 2008, Vol. 61, pp. 1203-1227. http://hum.sagepub.com/content/61/9/1203.short
Lambert, Susan J. and Julia R. Henly, Managers Strategies for Balancing Business Requirements with
Employee Needs, University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration, May 2010.
https://ssascholars.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/work-scheduling-study/files/univ_of_chicago_work_
scheduling_manager_report_6_25_0.pdf
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Not Just a Ferguson Problem How Traffic Courts Drive Inequality in
California, April 20, 2015. http://www.lccr.com/wp-content/uploads/Not-Just-a-Ferguson-Problem-How-TrafficCourts-Drive-Inequality-in-California-4.20.15.pdf
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Justice on Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice
System, Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2000. http://www.protectcivilrights.org/pdf/reports/justice.pdf
Lee, Sunhwa, and Lois Shaw, From Work to Retirement: Tracking Changes in Womens Poverty Status, AARP
Public Policy Institute and Women Policy Institute, February 2008. Retrieved 7/20/2015.
www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/from-work-to-retirement-tracking-changes-in-womens-poverty-status/at_
download/file
Lehner, Josh, Housing Affordability, Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, July 16, 2013.
http://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2013/07/16/housing-affordability/
Leibtag, Ephraim, and Aylin Kumcu, The WIC Fruit and Vegetable Cash Voucher: Does Regional Price
Variation Affect Buying Power? U.S. Department of Agriculture, EIB-75, Economic Research Service, May
2011. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/127579/eib75.pdf
Lerman, Robert, and Signe-Mary McKernan, The Effects of Holding Assets on Social and Economic Outcomes
of Families: A Review of Theory and Evidence, Urban Institute, November 2008.
Lewis, Kristen and Sarah Burd-Sharps, The Measure of America: American Human Development Report,
2013-2014, Measure of America, 2014. http://ssrc-static.s3.amazonaws.com/moa/MOA-III-June-18-FINAL.pdf
Liaw, Winston, Stephen Petterson, David L. Rabin, and Andrew Bazemore, The Impact of Insurance and a
Usual Source of Care on Emergency Department Use in the United States, International Journal of Family
Medicine, 2014, No.842847. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941574/
Lynch, Allen K. and David W. Rasmussen, Measuring the Impact of Crime on House Prices, Applied
Economics, 2001, 33, pp. 1981-89. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840110021735#preview
Maciag, Mike, Immigrants Countering Population Losses in Many Metro Areas, Governing.com, June 2014.
http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-international-migration-countering-metro-area-population-loss.html
Mangano, Philip, Ending Homelessness, Op-Ed, The Washington Times, September 1, 2008. Accessed
05/25/2014. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/1/ending-homelessness/?page=all
ManpowerGroup, 2012 Talent Shortage Survey, ManpowerGroup, 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2014.
http://www.manpowergroup.us/campaigns/talent-shortage-2012/
353
Luce, Stephanie and Naoki Fujita, Discounted Jobs: How Retailers Sell Workers Short, City University of New
York and Retail Action Project, 2012.
http://retailactionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/7-75_RAP+cover_lowres.pdf
Marr, Chuck, and Chye-Ching Huang, Misconceptions And Realities About Who Pays Taxes, Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, updated September 17, 2012.
http://www.cbpp.org//sites/default/files/atoms/files/5-26-11tax.pdf
Marr, Chuck, Chye-Ching Huang, Arloc Sherman, and Brandon Debot, EITC and Child Tax Credit Promote
Work, Reduce Poverty, and Support Childrens Development, Research Finds, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, updated October 1, 2015. http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/eitc-and-child-tax-credit-promotework-reduce-poverty-and-support-childrens
Martin, Jack, and Stanley Fogel, Projecting the U.S. Population to 2050: Four Immigration Scenarios,
Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2006. http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/pop_projections.pdf
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Living Wage Calculator, 2015. http://livingwage.mit.edu/
Mayer, Susan and Christopher Jencks, Poverty and the Distribution of Material Hardship, The Journal of
Human Resources, Winter 1989, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 88-114. http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy699j/MayerJ89.pdf
McCartney, Kathleen, Easy as ABC: Quality Childcare Matters for Low-Income Families, Harvard Graduate
School of Education, 2008. http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/leadership/LP309-608.html
McKenzie, Brian, and Melanie Rapino, Commuting in the United States: 2009, American Community Survey
Reports, September 2011. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf
McKernan, Signe-Mary, Caroline Ratcliffe and Trina Williams Shank, Is Poverty Incompatible With Asset
Accumulation? Urban Institute, 2011.
http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412391-Poverty-Incompatible-with-Asset-Accumulation.pdf
McKernan, Signe-Mary, Caroline Ratcliffe, Eugene Steuerle and Sisi Zhang, Less Than Equal: Racial
Disparities in Wealth Accumulation, Urban Institute, April 2013.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412802-Less-Than-Equal-Racial-Disparities-in-Wealth-Accumulation.pdf
McQueen, M.P., Road Risks Rise as More Drivers Drop Insurance: Higher Premiums, Joblessness Contribute
to Alarming Trend; What to Do When Youre Hit, Wall Street Journal, December 17, 2008.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122947388659212351.html
Merrell, Melissa, The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments,
Congressional Budget Office, December 2007. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/12-6-immigration.pdf
MetLife Mature Market Institute, Market Survey of Long-Term Care Costs: The 2012 MetLife Market Survey of
Nursing Home, Assisted Living, Adult Day Services, and Home Care Costs, MetLife, November 2012.
https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2012/studies/mmi-2012-market-survey-long-termcare-costs.pdf
MetLife Mature Market Institute, The MetLife Study of Working Caregivers and Employer Health Care Costs,
February 2010.
https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/2011/mmi-caregiving-costs-working-caregivers.pdf
Meyer, Bruce and Wallace Mok, Disability, Earnings, Income and Consumption, NBER Working Paper No.
18869, March 2013. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18869
Migration Policy Institute, State Immigration Data Profiles: Demographics & Social, 2013.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/demographics/ID/OR/WA
Miller, George, Representative (D-CA), Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for WalMart, A Report by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of
Representatives, February 16, 2004.
http://www.amiba.net/assets/files/studies/everyday-low-wages-georgemiller-walmartreport.pdf
354
Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz, The State of Working America, 12th Edition,
an Economic Policy Institute book. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2012.
Mitra, Dana, Pennsylvanias Best Investment: The Social and Economic Benefits of Public Education,
Pennsylvania State University, 2011.
http://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BestInvestment_Full_Report_6.27.11.pdf
Moffitt, Robert, The Great Recession and the Social Safety Net, Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, March 31, 2013. http://www.econ2.jhu.edu/people/Moffitt/moffitt%20annals%204-26-2013.pdf
Mortgage Bankers Association, Delinquencies Rise, Foreclosures Fall in Latest MBA Mortgage Delinquency
Survey, August 22, 2011. http://www.mbaa.org/NewsandMedia/PressCenter/77688.htm
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), State Statistics: Idaho, 2010.
http://www2.nami.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentFileID=93490
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), State Statistics: Oregon, 2010.
http://www2.nami.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentFileID=93516
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), State Statistics: Washington, 2010.
https://www2.nami.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentFileID=93526
National Alliance to End Homelessness, Chapter Two: The Economics of Homelessness, The State of
Homelessness in America, 2012. http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4364
National Association for the Education of Young Children, Required Criteria for NAEYC Accreditation, 2008.
http://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/Required_Criteria%5B1%5D.pdf
National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA), 2012 Child Care in the State of
Idaho, 2012. http://naccrrapps.naccrra.org/map/publications/2012/idaho_sfs_2012_preliminary_3_20_12.pdf
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo, The NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity
Index, 2014. http://www.nahb.org/reference_list.aspx?sectionID=135
National Center for Children in Poverty, Young Child Risk Calculator using 2007-2009 American Community
Survey. http://www.nccp.org/tools/risk/
National Conference of State Legislatures, Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Table by State, 2014.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/medicaid-eligibility-table-by-state-state-activit.aspx
National Employment Law Project, The Low-Wage Recovery: Industry Employment and Wages Four Years into
the Recovery, Data Brief, April 2014.
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Reports/Low-Wage-Recovery-Industry-Employment-Wages-2014-Report.
pdf?nocdn=1
National Health Council, Enhancing the Patient-Centeredness of State Health Insurance Markets, July 2015.
http://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org/sites/default/files/Final_State_Progress_Report-Charts-rev.pdf
National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), The State of Preschool 2014: State Preschool
Yearbook, Rutgers Graduate School of Education, 2015.
http://nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/Yearbook2014_full2_0.pdf
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), Out of Reach 2014, 2014.
http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2014OOR.pdf
355
National Employment Law Project, Super-sizing Public Costs: How Low Wages at Top Fast-Food Chains Leave
Taxpayers Footing the Bill, Data Brief, October 2013.
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/rtmw/uploads/NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf
National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), The Shrinking Supply of Affordable Housing, Housing
Spotlight, February 2012, Vol. 2, Issue 1. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/HousingSpotlight2-1.pdf
National Priorities Projects Federal Priorities Database. Local Spending Data,
http://nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/database/search/
National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, A Crucible Moment: College Learning and
Democracys Future, 2012, Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/crucible/Crucible_508F.pdf
National Urban League, One Nation Underemployed: Jobs Rebuild America, The State of Black America
2014, 38th Edition. New York, NY: National Urban League, 2014. http://iamempowered.com/soba/2014/home
Nelson, Brittne, Not Making the Grade: 2013 Survey Of Financial Decisions Among Washington State Adults
Ages 45-64, AARP Research & Strategic Analysis, April 2013.
Noss, Amanda, Household Income: 2013, U.S. Census Bureau, September 2014.
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acsbr13-02.pdf
OBrien, Rourke and David Pedulla, Beyond the Poverty Line, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2010.
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/beyond_the_poverty_line
ODell, William, Marc T. Smith, and Douglas White, Weaknesses in Current Measures of Housing Needs,
Housing and Society, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2004, pp. 29-40. http://www.housingeducators.org/Journals/H&S_Vol_31_
No_1_Weaknesses_in_Current_Measures_of_Housing_Needs.pdf
Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2015 Analytical Perspectives Budget of the U.S. Government,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 2014. (Tables start on p.253.)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2015-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2015-PER.pdf
Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Homeless Prevention
Programs, OEI-07-90-00100; 2/91, 2002-06-21. http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-90-00100.pdf
Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro, Black Wealth / White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial
Inequality, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge, 2006.
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Wealth-White-Perspective-Inequality/dp/0415951674
Ollove, Michael, Some States Pay Doctors More to Treat Medicaid Patients, Pew Charitable Trusts, April 2015.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/4/17/some-states-pay-doctors-more-totreat-medicaid-patients
Opportunity Nation, Opportunity Index 2013, Be the Change, Inc.,

http://www.opportunitynation.org/pages/2013-opportunity-index-measuring-mobility
Oregon Department of Human Services, Employment-related Child Care, accessed 11/21/2015.
https://apps.state.or.us/cf1/ERDC/
Oregon Department of Transportation, The Value of Travel-Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time for
Vehicles in Oregon 2011, Programs & Economic Analysis Unit, November 2012.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/Reports/Value_of_TravelTime2011.pdf
Oregon Employment Department, Training Assistance (TUI), accessed 9/22/15.
http://www.oregon.gov/Employ/Unemployment/Pages/TUI.aspx
Oregon Health Authority, Impacts of the Affordable Care Act on Health Insurance Coverage in Oregon: County
Results/Statewide Update, 2015. https://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/centers-institutes/center-for-healthsystems-effectiveness/upload/Health-Insurance-Coverage-in-Oregon-County-Results.pdf
356
Oregon Secretary of State, Oregon Department of Education: Efforts to Close Achievement Gaps, April 2014,
Report Number 2013-10. http://sos.oregon.gov/audits/Documents/2014-10.pdf
Parity Project, Untreated and Under-Treated Mental Health Problems, NAMI-New York City Metro, May 13,
2003. http://www.mentalhealthpromotion.net/resources/untreated-and-undertreated-mental-health-problemshow-are-they-hurting-your-business.pdf
Partnership for Strong Communities, Housing CT 2013,
http://pschousing.org/files/PSC_HousingInCT2013_Final.pdf
PayScale, 2013-2014 PayScale College Salary Report.
http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back
Pendall, Rolf, Christopher Hayes, Arthur George, Zach McDade, Casey Dawkins, Jae Sik Jeon, Eli Knaap,
Evelyn Blumenberg, Gregory Pierce, Michael Smart, Driving to Opportunity: Understanding the Links among
Transportation Access, Residential Outcomes, and Economic Opportunity for Housing Voucher Recipients, The
Urban Institute, March 2014. http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/413078-Drivingto-Opportunity-Understanding-the-Links-among-Transportation-Access-Residential-Outcomes-and-EconomicOpportunity-for-Housing-Voucher-Recipients.PDF
Perryman Group, An Essential Resource: An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Undocumented Workers on
Business Activity in the US with Estimated Effects by State and Industry, April 2008.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/ipc/Impact%20of%20the%20Undocumented%20
Workforce%20April%2015%202008.pdf
Petterson, Stephen M., Angela Cai, Miranda Moore, and Andrew Bazemore, State-level Projections of Primary
Care Workforce, 2010-2030: Idaho, Robert Graham Center, Washington, D.C., September 2013.
http://www.graham-center.org/content/dam/rgc/documents/maps-data-tools/state-collections/workforceprojections/Idaho.pdf
Care Workforce, 2010-2030: Oregon,. Robert Graham Center, Washington, D.C., September 2013.
http://www.graham-center.org/content/dam/rgc/documents/maps-data-tools/state-collections/workforceprojections/Oregon.pdf
Care Workforce, 2010-2030: Washington, Robert Graham Center, Washington, D.C., September 2013.
http://www.graham-center.org/content/dam/rgc/documents/maps-data-tools/state-collections/workforceprojections/Washington.pdf
Pew Research Center, The Rise of Asian Americans, updated April 4, 2013.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, American Values Survey: Question Database, Pew
Research Center, 2012. Retrieved May 30, 2014.
http://www.people-press.org/values-questions/q41t/i-often-dont-have-enough-money-to-make-ends-meet/#total
Pew Research Center Hispanic Trends, Unauthorized Immigrants in the U.S., 2012, November 18, 2014.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants-2012/map/all-immigrant-share/
Pfeffer, Fabian T., Sheldon Danziger, and Robert F. Schoeni, Wealth Disparities before and after the Great
Recession, National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #13-05, University of Michigan, April 2013.
http://npc.umich.edu/publications/u/2013-05-npc-working-paper.pdf
357
Pew Hispanic Center, Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010, Pew Research
Center, February 2011. http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf#page=24
Piette, John D., Anne Marie Rosland, Maria J. Silveira, Rodney Hayward, and Colleen A. McHorney,
Medication Cost Problems among Chronically Ill Adults in the US: Did the Financial Crisis Make a Bad Situation
Worse? Patient Preference and Adherence, 2011, 5, pp. 18794.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090380/
Pivo, Gary, The Definition of Affordable Housing: Concerns and Related Evidence, University of Arizona and
Fannie Mae, 2013.
http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/fundmarket/pdf/hoytpivo_mfhousing_affordablehousingdef_122013.pdf
Povich, Deborah, Brandon Roberts and Mark Mather, Low-Income Working Mothers and State Policy: Investing
for a Better Economic Future, Working Poor Families Project, 2012.
http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WPFP_Low-Income-Working-MothersReport_021214.pdf
Prah, Pamela, States Confront New Mindset on Home Care Workers Wages, Pew Charitable Trusts, April
25, 2014. Retrieved May 30, 2014. http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/states-confront-newmindset-on-home-care-workers-wages-85899544323
Presser, Harriet B., Working in a 24/7 Economy: Challenges for American Families, New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 2005.
Prevost, Lisa, Snob Zones: Fear, Prejudice, and Real Estate, Boston: Beacon Press 2013,
http://www.amazon.com/Snob-Zones-Fear-Prejudice-Estate-ebook/dp/B008ED6AL8
Proehl, Risa, Whos Home? A Look at Households and Housing in Oregon, Population Research Center,
September 2011.
http://mkn.research.pdx.edu/2011/09/whos-home-a-look-at-households-and-housing-in-oregon/
Project on Student Debt, Student Debt and the Class of 2013, The Institute for College Access & Success,
2013. http://ticas.org/content/pub/student-debt-and-class-2013-0
Putnam, Robert, Bowling Alone: Americas Declining Social Capital, Journal of Democracy, January 1995, Vol.
6, No. 1, pp. 65-78. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html
Ramchand, Rajeev, Terri Tanielian, Michael P. Fisher, Christine Anne Vaughan, Thomas E. Trail, Caroline Epley,
Phoenix Voorhies, Michael Robbins, Eric Robinson and Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, Hidden Heroes: Americas
Military Caregivers, RAND Corporation, 2014. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR499
Rampell, Catherine, As New Graduates Return to Nest, Economy Also Feels the Pain, The New York Times,
November 16, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/business/economy/as-graduates-move-back-homeeconomy-feels-the-pain.html
Reid, Caroline K., Achieving the American Dream? A Longitudinal Analysis of the Homeownership Experiences
of Low-Income Households, Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington,
Working Paper No. 04-04, 2004. https://csde.washington.edu/downloads/04-04.pdf
Reinhard, Susan C., Enid Kassner, Ari Houser, Kathleen Ujvari, Robert Mollica, and Leslie Hendrickson,
Raising Expectations: A State Scorecard on Long-Term Services and Supports for Older Adults, People With
Physical Disabilities, and Family Caregivers, Second Edition, AARP, The Commonwealth Fund and the SCAN
Foundation, 2014. http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/ltc/2014/raisingexpectations-2014-AARP-ppi-ltc.pdf
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Health Cares Blind Side: The Overlooked Connection Between Social
Needs and Good Health: Summary of Findings from a Survey of Americas Physicians, December 2011.
http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/RWJFPhysiciansSurveyExecutiveSummary.pdf
358
Roberts, Brandon, Deborah Povich and Mark Mather, Low-Income Working Families: The Growing Economic
Gap, Working Poor Families Project, Winter 2012-2013.
http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Winter-2012_2013-WPFP-Data-Brief.pdf
Rohe, William M., Shannon Van Zandt, and George McCarthy, Social Benefits and Costs of Homeownership,
in Low-Income Homeownership: Examining the Unexamined Goal, edited by N.P. Retsinas and E.S. Belsky.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002.
Rosenbaum, Dottie, The Relationship Between SNAP and Work Among Low-Income Households, Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, January 2013. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=38
Rothstein, Jesse, The Labor Market Four Years into the Crisis: Assessing Structural Explanations, NBER
Working Paper 17966, March 2012. Retrieved May 30, 2014. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17966
Rothstein, Richard, For Public Schools, Segregation Then, Segregation Since: Education and the Unfinished
March, Economic Policy Institute, August 27, 2013.
http://www.epi.org/publication/unfinished-march-public-school-segregation/
Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement in America, Better Together, 2000.
http://www.bettertogether.org/thereport.htm
Sampson, Karen, 2014 Child Care Data Report January December 2014, Child Care Aware of Washington,
January 2015. http://wa.childcareaware.org/about-us/data/2014-data-folder/2014-annual-data-report
Scanlon, Edward, and Deborah Page-Adams, Homeownership and Youth Well-Being: An Empirical Test of
Asset-Based Welfare, Center for Social Development, Washington University in St. Louis, 2000.
http://csd.wustl.edu/Publications/Documents/40.HomeownershipAndYouth.pdf
Schmitt, John, Low-wage Lessons, Center for Economic and Policy Research, January 2012.
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/low-wage-2012-01.pdf
Schmitt, John, and Janelle Jones, Where Have All the Good Jobs Gone?, Center for Economic and Policy
Research, July 2012. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/good-jobs-2012-07.pdf
Schoen, Cathy, David Radley, Pamela Riley, Jacob Lippa, Julia Berenson, Cara Dermody, and Anthony Shih,
Healthcare in the Two Americas: Findings from the Scorecard on State Health System Performance for LowIncome Populations, 2013, Commonwealth Fund, 2013. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/
publications/fund-report/2013/sep/1700_schoen_low_income_scorecard_full_report_final_v4.pdf
Schwartz, Ari, Michael Wasser, Merrit Gillard, and Michael Paarlberg, Unpredictable, Unsustainable: The
Impact of Employers Scheduling Practices in DC, DC Jobs with Justice, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, and the
Georgetown University Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor, June 2015.
http://www.dcjwj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/DCJWJ_Scheduling_Report_2015.pdf
Schwartz, Mary, and Ellen Wilson, Who Can Afford To Live in a Home? U.S. Census Bureau, 2008.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/special-topics/files/who-can-afford.pdf
Seligman, Hilary, Barbara Laraia, and Margot Kushel, Food Insecurity Is Associated with Chronic Disease
among Low-Income NHANES Participants, The Journal of Nutrition, February 2010, 140(2).
Shaefer, H. Luke, and Kathryn Edin, Rising Extreme Poverty in the United States and the Response of Federal
Means-Tested Transfer Programs, National Poverty Center, Working Paper #13-06, May 2013.
http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/working_papers/?publication_id=255&
359
Schur, Lisa, Douglas Kruse, Joseph Blasi and Peter Blanck, Is Disability Disabling in All Workplaces?
Workplace Disparities and Corporate Culture, Industrial Relations, July 2009, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 381-410.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1402968
Shapiro, Robert, and Kevin Hassett, The Economic Benefits of Reducing Violent Crime: Cast Study of 8
American Cities, Center for American Progress, June 2012. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/
report/2012/06/19/11755/the-economic-benefits-of-reducing-violent-crime/
Shapiro, Thomas, Tatjana Meschede, and Sam Osoro, The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap:
Explaining the Black-White Economic Divide, Institute on Assets and Social Policy, Brandeis University, 2013.
http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Author/shapiro-thomas-m/racialwealthgapbrief.pdf
Sherman, Arloc, Danilo Trisi, and Sharon Parrott, Various Supports for Low-Income Families Reduce Poverty
and Have Long-Term Positive Effects On Families and Children, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July
30, 2013. http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/7-30-13pov.pdf
Shonkoff, Jack P., and Andrew S. Garner, The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress,
Committee On Psychosocial Aspects Of Child And Family Health, Committee On Early Childhood, Adoption,
and Dependent Care, and Section On Developmental And Behavioral Pediatrics, American Academy of
Pediatrics, Pediatrics, January 2012, Vol. 129, No.1.
Short, Kathleen, The Research: Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2010, Current Population Reports, U.S.
Census Bureau, November 2011.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/Short_ResearchSPM2010.pdf
Short, Kathleen, The Research: Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2012, Current Population Reports, U.S.
Census Bureau, November 2013. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf
Shtauber, Assaf, The Effects of Access to Mainstream Financial Services on the Poor, Columbia Business
School Research Paper No. 14-11, June 1, 2013. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2403335
Shumway, Randy, Idaho Economic Outlook, The Current, Zions Bank, April, 2013.
https://www.zionsbank.com/pdfs/economic-outlook/1304xx-The%20Current_ID_APR_v3_digital.pdf
Silletti, Leslie, The Costs and Benefits of Supportive Housing, Center for Urban Initiatives and Research,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, June 2005.
http://www.metropolisstrategies.org/documents/CostsandBenefitsofSupportiveHousing-areview.pdf
Smith, Aaron, U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015, Pew Research Center, April 2015.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/01/6-facts-about-americans-and-their-smartphones/
Sorte, Bruce, Paul Lewin and Pamela Opfer, Oregon Agriculture and the Economy: An Update, Oregon Sate
University, 2011
Stagman, Shannon, and Janice L. Cooper, Childrens Mental Health: What Every Policymaker Should Know,
National Center for Children in Poverty, April 2010. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_929.pdf
State of Oregon, Oregon Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, State Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, 2015.
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/HAZ/docs/2015ORNHMP/2015ORNHMPApproved/Approved_2015ORNHMP_2_
ExecSum.pdf
Stetser, Marie, and Robert Stillwell, Public High School Four-Year On-Time Graduation Rates and Event
Dropout Rates: School Years 201011 and 201112, First Look (NCES 2014-391), National Center for
Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, april 2014. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014391.pdf
Stone, Charley, Carl Van Horn, and Cliff Zukin, Chasing the American Dream: Recent College Graduates and
the Great Recession, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers University, May 2012.
http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/content/Chasing_American_Dream_Report.pdf
Sullivan, James, Borrowing During Unemployment: Unsecured Debt as a Safety Net, Chicago Federal
Reserve, February 2005.
http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/others/events/2005/promises_and_pitfalls/paper_borrowing.pdf
360
Sum, Andrew, and Ishwar Khatiwada, The Nations Underemployed in the Great Recession of 200709,
Monthly Labor Review, 2010, Vol. 133. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/11/mlr201011.pdf
Suro, Roberto, Jill H. Wilson, and Audrey Singer, Immigration and Poverty in Americas Suburbs,
Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, August 2011. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/
papers/2011/0804_immigration_suro_wilson_singer/0804_immigration_suro_wilson_singer.pdf
Tanielian, Terri, Rajeev Ramchand, Michael P. Fisher, Carra S. Sims, Racine S. Harris, and Margaret C. Harrell,
Military Caregivers: Cornerstones of Support for Our Nations Wounded, Ill, and Injured Veterans, RAND
Corporation, 2013. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR244.html
The Economist, American House Prices: Realty Check, November 3, 2015.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/us-house-prices
The Pew Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project, Hard Choices: Navigating the Economic Shock of
Unemployment, April 2013. http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/2013/Hard_Choices.pdf
The Sentencing Project, Reducing Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System: A Manual for Practitioners
and Policymakers, Second Edition, 2008.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_reducingracialdisparity.pdf
Thiess, Rebecca, The Future of Work: Trends and Challenges for Low-Wage Workers, Economic Policy
Institute, Briefing Paper No. 341, April 2012. http://www.epi.org/files/2012/bp341-future-of-work.pdf
Tomer, Adie, Elizabeth Kneebone, Robert Puentes, and Alan Berube, Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in
Metropolitan America, Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, May 2011.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/5/12-jobs-and-transit/0512_jobs_transit.pdf
Tompson, Trevor, Jennifer Benz , Jennifer Agiesta, and Dennis Junius, Americas Lower-Wage Workforce:
Employer and Worker Perspectives, The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 2013.
http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Wages/AP_NORC_Low%20Wage%20Earners_Final.pdf
Ton, Zeynep, Why Good Jobs Are Good for Retailers, Harvard Business Review, January-February 2012.
http://retailactionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/WhyGoodJobsAreGoodforRetailers_ZTon.pdf
Tyler, John, and Magnus Lofstrom, Finishing High School: Alternative Pathways and Dropout Recovery,
Americas High Schools, The Future of Children, Princeton-Brookings, Spring 2009, Vol. 19, No. 1.
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=30&articleid=49&sectionid=175
U.S. Census Bureau, County to County Commuting Flows for the United States and Puerto Rico: 2009-2013,
2009-2013, Table 1. http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/
U.S. Census Bureau, Detailed Tables on Wealth and Asset Ownership, 2011.
http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html
U.S. Census Bureau, Experimental Poverty Measures Publications, 2010.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/publications/index.html
U.S. Census Bureau, Health Insurance Coverage 1994, Current Population Reports, P60-190, October
1995. https://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p60-190.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau, Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013, Current Population Reports,
September 2014. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-250.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau, Marital Status of the Population by Sex and Age, The Statistical Abstract of the United
States. Table 57, 2010a. www2.census.gov/library/.../12s0057.xls
361
U.S. Census Bureau, Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2012, Table 3. Marital Status of the
Population 15 Years and Over by Sex and Age, 2012.
https://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2012comp.html
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Projections, 2005.

https://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/state/projectionsagesex.html
U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Thresholds, 2007, 2010 and 2012, Poverty Data.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html
U.S. Census Bureau, Reported Voting and Registration of Family Members, by Age and Family Income, Voting
and Registration in the Election of November 2008, Table 8, November 2008.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/tables.html
U.S. Census Bureau, Reported Voting and Registration of Family Members, by Age and Family Income, Voting
and Registration in the Election of November 2012, Table 7, November 2012.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2012/tables.html
U.S. Census Bureau, Who Votes? Congressional Elections and the American Electorate: 1978-2014, 2015.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service, Program Data: Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), 2015 http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Security in the United States: Definitions of Food Security,
USDA Economic Research Service, 2014. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/foodsecurity-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security.aspx#.U8geSJRdXmc
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Security in the United States: Key Statistics & Graphics, USDA
Economic Research Service, 2014.
http://ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#map
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Elizabeth Frazo, High Costs Of Poor Eating Patterns In the United
States, USDA Economic Research Service, 1999. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/91018/aib750a_1_.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Geography of Poverty, 1980, 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses and
2007-11 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, updated May 2015.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/geography-of-poverty.aspx
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Key Statistics & Graphics, USDA Economic Research Service, 2012.
http://ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Data, GDP and Personal
Income, 2015. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_regional.cfm
U.S. Department of Education, ESEA Title I LEA Allocations FY 2012,

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/titlei/fy12/index.html
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
Common Core of Data State Dropout and Graduation Rate Data, 2013.
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2012-13.asp
National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2011 Mathematics Grade 8 Assessment.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/2011_gaps_table_12.aspx
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 and 2013 Mathematics and Reading Assessments,
2013. http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_g12_2013/#/state-gains
362
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2009 Worst Case Housing Needs of People With
Disabilities: Supplemental Findings of the Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress, Office of
Policy Development and Research, March 2011.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/WorstCaseDisabilities03_2011.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Affordable Housing, definition of housing
burden, 2012. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Bridging the Gap: Homelessness Policy, Insights
into Housing and Community Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 2011.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/insight/insight_1.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), CHAS: Background, Data Sets, retrieved July
10, 2015.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Costs Associated with First-Time Homelessness
for Families and Individuals, Office of Policy Development and Research, March 2010.
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/Costs_Homeless.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Creating Connected Communities, prepared by
the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, April 2014.
http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/Creating_Cnnted_Comm.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Housing Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic
Minorities 2012, June 2013. http://www.huduser.org/portal/Publications/pdf/HUD-514_HDS2012.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Point In Time Estimates of Homelessness, 2014.
http://catalog.data.gov/dataset/ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Section 8 FY 2013 Income Limits, 2013.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il13/index.html and
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/ura/ura15/IncomeLimits_URA.pdf
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Summary of all HUD Programs, 2013 based on
2010 Census, 2013. http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/picture/yearlydata.html
U.S. Department of Transportation, Beyond Traffic: Trends and Choices 2045, 2015.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Draft_Beyond_Traffic_Framework.pdf
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Survey of Veterans, Active Duty Service Members, Demobilized
National Guard and Reserve Members, Family Members, and Surviving Spouses, prepared by Westat,
October 2010. http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/surveysandstudies/nvssurveyfinalweightedreport.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Federal Disaster Assistance, Improved Criteria Needed to
Assess a Jurisdictions Capability to Respond and Recover on Its Own. GOA-12-838. September 2012.
Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648162.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Tax Debts: Factors for Considering a Proposal to Report Tax
Debts to Credit Bureaus, GAO-12-939, 2012. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-939
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Unemployment Insurance: Low-Wage And Part-Time Workers
Continue To Experience Low Rates Of Receipt, GAO-07-2247, 2007. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071147.pdf
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce, The Low-Wage Drag on Our
Economy: Wal-Marts Low Wages and their Effect on Taxpayers and Economic Growth, prepared by the
Democratic Staff, May 2013. http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/
files/documents/WalMartReport-May2013.pdf
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureaus Threat to Credit Access in The United States, Staff Report, 112th Congress, December 14,
2012. http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Access-to-Credit-Report-12.14.12.pdf
363
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, The EAC 2014 Election Administration and Voting Survey
Comprehensive Report: A Summary of Key Findings, A Report to the 114th Congress, June 30, 2015.
http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/2014_EAC_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report_508_Compliant.pdf
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Dental Crisis in America: the Need to Expand
Access, A Report from Chairman Bernard Sanders, Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, February 29,
2012. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DENTALCRISIS.REPORT.pdf
Uchitelle, Louis, How to Define Poverty? Let Us Count the Ways, The New York Times, May 26, 2001.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/26/arts/how-to-define-poverty-let-us-count-the-ways.
html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, State Homeless Resources Map, 2013, accessed May
28, 2014. http://usich.gov/usich_resources/maps/overall_homelessness_rates/
Urbana IDOT Traffic Stop Data Task Force, Preliminary Findings, July 2, 2015.
http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/idot-traffic-stop-data-task-force-preliminary-findings.pdf
USA Today, State-by-State Day Care Costs, June 20, 2007.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-20-day-care-table_N.htm
Vandell, Deborah Lowe, Jay Belsky, Margaret Burchinal, Laurence Steinberg, and Nathan Vandergrift, Do
Effects of Early Child Care Extend to Age 15 Years? Results From the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and
Youth Development, Child Development, Published Online: May 13, 2010.
VanLandeghem, Karen and Cindy Brach, Mental Health Needs of Low-Income Children with Special Health
Care Needs, CHIRI Issue Brief No. 9, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, April 2009. AHRQ Pub.
No. 090033. http://www.ahrq.gov/cpi/initiatives/chiri/Briefs/brief9/brief9.pdf
Vespa, Jonathan, Jamie M. Lewis, and Rose M. Kreider, Americas Families and Living Arrangements: 2012,
Population Characteristics, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2013.
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf
Viebeck, Elise, Feds: Up to 6 million will face ObamaCare penalty, The Hill, January 28, 2015.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231018-feds-15-to-30-million-exempt-from-obamacare-penalty
Waid, Mikki D., An Uphill Climb: Women Face Greater Obstacles to Retirement Security, AARP Public Policy
Institute, Fact Sheet 281, April 2013. http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/
econ_sec/2013/uphill-climb-women-face-greater-obstacles-retirement-security-AARP-ppi-econ-sec.pdf
Wall, Thomas, and Marko Vujicic, Emergency Department Use for Dental Conditions Continues to Increase,
Health Policy Institute Research Brief, American Dental Association, April 2015.
http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Science%20and%20Research/HPI/Files/HPIBrief_0415_2.ashx
Washington Department of Commerce, State of Washington Housing Needs Assessment 2015, Washington
State Affordable Housing Advisory Board, 2015.
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/Wa%20Housing%20Needs%20Assessment.pdf
Washington Educational Opportunity Gap Oversight and Accountability Committee, Closing the Opportunity
Gap: 2015 Annual Report, 2015.
http://www.k12.wa.us/WorkGroups/EOGOAC/pubdocs/EOGOAC2015AnnualReport.pdf
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2013-2014 Report, Appendix A State 2014.
http://k12.wa.us/DataAdmin/default.aspx
Washington State, Element B: Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, Enhanced State Hazard Mitigation
Plan, 2013. http://mil.wa.gov/uploads/pdf/HAZ%20MIT%20PLAN/Element_B_Natural_Hazard_Identification_
and_Risk_Assessment.pdf
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Earthquakes in Washington, available at
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/geologichazardsmapping/pages/earthquakes.aspx
364
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Aging Demographic Information, 2010.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Washington State Plan on Aging, 2014-2018,
Aging and Long-Term Support Administration, 2014.
https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ALTSA/Washington%20State%20Plan%20on%20Aging.pdf
Washington State Department of Transportation, 2012 Summary of Public Transportation, M 3079.06,
December 2013. ftp://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/public/PubTranSummaries/2012%20-%20Summary%20of%20
Public%20Transportation3079-06.pdf
Washington Employment Security Department, 2014 Employment Projections, Labor Market and Performance
Analysis, September 2014.
https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/docs/industry-reports/employment-projections-2014.pdf
Watson, Liz, and Jennifer E. Swanberg, Flexible Workplace Solutions for Low-Wage Hourly Workers,
Workplace Flexibility 2010 and The Institute for Workplace Innovation (iwin) at the University of Kentucky, May
2011. http://workplaceflexibility2010.org/images/uploads/whatsnew/Flexible%20Workplace%20Solutions%20
for%20Low-Wage%20Hourly%20Workers.pdf
Watson, Liz, Lauren Frohlich, and Elizabeth Johnston, Collateral Damage: Scheduling Challenges for Workers
in Low-Wage Jobs and Their Consequences, National Womens Law Center, April 2014.
http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/collateral_damage_scheduling_fact_sheet.pdf
Weaver, R. Kent, The Politics of Low-Income Families in the United States, in Making the Work-Based Safety
Net Work Better: Forward-Looking Policies to Help Low-Income Families, edited by Carolyn J. Heinrich and
John Karl Scholz. New York, NY: Russell Sage, September 2011.
Weber, Bobbie, Child Care and Education in Oregon and Its Counties: 2014, Oregon Child Care Research
Partnership, July 2015. http://health.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/occrp/2014-state-and-county-profiles/
pdf/state-profile-child-care-and-education-in-oregon-and-its-counties-2014.pdf
Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), Coming Up Short: Wages, Public Assistance and Economic Security
Across America, Spring 2011. http://www.wowonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Basic-EconomicSecurity-Tables-Coming-Up-Short-Report-2011.pdf
Witters, Dan, Arkansas, Kentucky Report Sharpest Drops in Uninsured Rate, Gallup, August 2014.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/174290/arkansas-kentucky-report-sharpest-drops-uninsured-rate.aspx
Witters, Dan, Caregiving Costs U.S. Economy $25.2 Billion in Lost Productivity, Gallup Well-Being, July 27,
2011. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148670/caregiving-costs-economy-billion-lost-productivity.aspx
Zavodny, Madeline, Immigration and its Contribution to our Economic Strength, Testimony before the
Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Senate, May 8, 2013. http://www.aei.org/files/2013/05/08/-zavodnyimmigration-and-its-contribution-to-our-economic-strength_141729556780.pdf
Zhe, Ying, The Effects of English Proficiency on Earnings of U.S. Foreign-Born Immigrants: Does Gender
Matter?, Journal of Finance & Economics, 2013, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
http://www.todayscience.org/JEF/v1-1/JEF.2291-4951.2013.0101003.pdf
Zurlo, Karen A., WonAh Yoon, and Hyungsoo Kim, Unsecured Consumer Debt and Mental Health Outcomes in
Middle-Aged and Older Americans, Journals of Gerontology, 69(3), May 2014, pp. 461-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2463723
365
Working Poor Families Project (WPFP), Framework of Indicators and Source Data, 2013.
http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FrameworkofIndicators20135-1-13.pdf
ALICE is a registered trademark of the United Way of Northern New Jersey.

Copyright 20092015 United Way of Northern New Jersey. All rights reserved.
No further use, copying, dissemination, distribution, or publication is permitted without the express written permission
of United Way of Northern New Jersey.

United Way Pacific Northwest Alice Report 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United Way Pacific Northwest Alice Report 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALICE

ASSET LIMITED, INCOME CONSTRAINED, EMPLOYED

STUDY OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

THE UNITED WAYS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

United Way of South Central Idaho, Inc.

United Way of Idaho Falls & Bonneville County, Inc.

United Way of Southeastern Idaho

United Way of Kootenai County

United Way of Treasure Valley, Inc.

United Way of Moscow/Latah County

United Way of Jackson County

Greater Douglas United Way

United Way of Lane County

Jefferson County United Way

United Way of Linn County

Tillamook County United Way

United Way of Southwestern Oregon

Tri-County United Fund

United Way of the Columbia Gorge

United Way of Benton & Lincoln Counties

United Way of the Columbia-Willamette

United Way of Clatsop County

United Way of the Klamath Basin

United Way of Columbia County

United Way of the Mid-Willamette Valley

United Way of Deschutes County

United Way of Umatilla And Morrow Counties

United Way of Eastern Oregon

United Way of Lewis County

United Way of Benton & Franklin Counties

United Way of Mason County

United Way of Central Washington

United Way of Pierce County

United Way of Chelan & Douglas Co.

United Way of Pullman

United Way of Clallam County

United Way of San Juan County

United Way of Cowlitz County

United Way of Skagit Co.

United Way of Grant Co.

United Way of Snohomish County

United Way of Grays Harbor

United Way of Spokane County

United Way of Island Co.

United Way of Thurston County

United Way of King County

United Way of Walla Walla County

United Way of Kitsap County

United Way of Whatcom County

NATIONAL ALICE ADVISORY COUNCIL

AT&T | Atlantic Health System | Deloitte | Entergy | Johnson & Johnson

LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY

THE UNITED WAY ALICE PROJECT

States with United Way ALICE Reports

New Jersey (2012)

THE ALICE RESEARCH TEAM

Lead Researcher and National Director

Research Support Team

Laurie Hills, M.B.A.

Hanjin Mao, M.P.A.

ALICE Research Advisory Committee for the Pacific Northwest

David Hartman, M.A.

Ali Modarres, Ph.D.

Patrick Jones, Ph.D.

II. HOW COSTLY IS IT TO LIVE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST?45

VI. THE CONSEQUENCES OF INSUFFICIENT HOUSEHOLD INCOME95